[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 7, Chapters 22 - 25]
[Chapter 22. Calendars]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 4459-4465]
 
                               CHAPTER 22
 
                               Calendars


[[Page 4459]]



---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Commentary and editing by David Paul Bird, J.D.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Introductory

    Sec. 1. Calendars of the House
    Sec. 2. Union and House Calendars

B. Consent Calendar

    Sec. 3. In General
    Sec. 4. When in Order
    Sec. 5. Calling Measures on the Calendar
    Sec. 6. Precedence Over Other House Business
    Sec. 7. Measures Qualified for the Calendar
    Sec. 8. Objection to or Passing Over Measures on the Calendar
    Sec. 9. Debate; Amendment of Measures

C. Private Calendar; Private Bills

    Sec. 10. In General
    Sec. 11. Calling Up
    Sec. 12. Objections; Disposition
    Sec. 13. Consideration, Debate, and Amendment
    Sec. 14. Private Bills and House-Senate Relations
                         DESCHLER'S PRECEDENTS
Ch. 22

[[Page 4461]]

                           INDEX TO PRECEDENTS
                                     

Adversely reported measures, referral of, to calendar, Sec. 1.1
Amendment to private bill
    debate on, under five-minute rule, Sec. Sec. 13.2, 13.4, 13.5
    germaneness of amendment adding general language Sec. Sec. 13.7, 
        13.8
Bills improperly referred
    transfer to proper calendar, Sec. 1.2
Calendar Wednesday
    consideration of private bills on, Sec. 11.10
Call of Consent Calendar
    change of day by House resolution, Sec. 4.3
    change of day by unanimous consent, Sec. 4.1
    dispensing with, Sec. 4.2
    Speaker's discretion as to recognition during, Sec. 5.5
Committee of the Whole, House as in
    consideration of Consent Calendar in, Sec. Sec. 9.1, 9.2
Conference report
    precedence over Consent Calendar, Sec. 6.2
    precedence over Private Calendar, Sec. 11.12
Consent Calendar, consideration of
    advance notice of amendments, Sec. 9.6
    five-minute rule, Sec. 9.3, 9.4
    in House as in Committee of the Whole, Sec. 9.1, 9.2
    offering amendments, Sec. 9.5
    raising point of order against, Sec. 9.9
    striking enacting clause, Sec. 9.8
District Monday
    consideration of private bills on, Sec. 11.9
Five-minute rule, debate under
    extending on omnibus private bills, Sec. Sec. 13.4, 13.5
    for amendments to private bills, Sec. 13.2
    for consideration of Consent Calendar bills, Sec. Sec. 9.3, 9.4
Laying on the table
    of measures called on Consent Calendar, Sec. 5.12
Motion to strike enacting clause
    of omnibus private bill, Sec. Sec. 13.10, 13.11
Objections
    by Speaker, to Consent Calendar measure, Sec. 8.5
    reservation of, to Consent Calendar measure, Sec. 8.4
    to Consent Calendar measure, as untimely, Sec. Sec. 8.1-8.3
Official objectors
    appointment of, for Private Calendar, Sec. 12.2
    Consent Calendar criteria, Sec. 7.4
    replacement of, for Private Calendar, Sec. 12.3
    restoring measure by consulting with, Sec. 12.12
Omnibus private bills
    passed over by unanimous consent, Sec. Sec. 12.4, 12.5
    precedence of, Sec. Sec. 11.3, 11.4
    resolving into individual bills, Sec. 14.1
    tabling part of, Sec. 14.3
    validity and consideration of, Sec. 13.1
Passing over without prejudice
    Consent Calendar, Sec. Sec. 8.6, 8.7
    private bills, Sec. 12.6
Point of order as to Consent Calendar
    timeliness of, Sec. 9.9
Precedence of Consent Calendar over unfinished business, Sec. 6.1
Private bills
    amendment of, under five-minute rule, Sec. 13.2

[[Page 4462]]

    consideration of, by special order, Sec. Sec. 11.5, 11.6
    consideration of, by unanimous consent, Sec. 11.7
    consideration of, with Senate amendment, Sec. 14.6
    consideration on Calendar Wednesday, Sec. 11.10
    consideration on District Monday, Sec. 11.9
    extending time for debate of, Sec. Sec. 13.4, 13.5
    motion to strike enacting clause in, Sec. Sec. 13.10-13.12
    nongermane amendments, Sec. Sec. 13.7, 13.8
    passing over without prejudice, Sec. 12.6
    pro forma amendments, Sec. Sec. 13.13-13.17
    recommitting by unanimous consent, Sec.Sec. 12.7
    rescinding passage, Sec. 12.17
    rescinding reference to Court of Claims, Sec. 12.16
    reservation of objection, Sec. Sec. 12.8, 12.9
    transferral to Union Calendar, Sec. 12.18
    unanimous consent to address the House, Sec. 13.3
    withdrawal of committee amendments to, Sec. 13.9
Private bills, Senate, consideration of
    by resolution, Sec. Sec. 14.2, 14.6
    by unanimous consent, Sec. Sec. 14.4, 14.5
Pro forma amendments to private bills, Sec. Sec. 13.13-13.17
Public bills on Consent Calendar
    providing for payment to a class, Sec. 7.3
    providing for payment to foreign subjects, Sec. Sec. 7.1, 7.2
Recommittal
    of amended bill on Consent Calendar, Sec. 9.7
    of private bills by unanimous consent, Sec. 12.7
    restoring bill to Consent Calendar after, Sec. 5.8
Replacing measure on Consent Calendar in subsequent session, Sec. 5.6
Reservation of objection
    to Consent Calendar bill, Sec. 8.4
    to private bills, Sec. Sec. 12.8, 12.9
Restoring bill to Consent Calendar
    by unanimous consent, Sec. 5.9
    by vacating previous proceedings, Sec. Sec. 5.10, 5.11
Seven-day requirement for Private Calendar measures, Sec. 12.1
Special order
    consideration of private bill by, Sec. Sec. 11.5, 11.6
Striking bill from Consent Calendar by unanimous consent, Sec. 5.7
Striking enacting clause of Consent Calendar bill, Sec. 9.8
Superseding Consent Calendar by unanimous consent, Sec. 6.3
Suspension of Consent Calendar for other business, Sec. 4.2
Three-legislative-days requirement
    Consent Calendar bill, Sec. 8.4
    waiver of objection, Sec. 5.2
    waiver of objection by unanimous consent, Sec. Sec. 5.3, 5.4
Timeliness of point of order against Consent Calendar bill, Sec. 9.9
Unanimous consent
    addressing the House on private bills by, Sec. 13.3
    consideration of private bills by, Sec. 11.7
    passing over omnibus private bills by, Sec. Sec. 12.4, 12.5
    Private Calendar, transfer of, by Sec. 11.8
    recommitting private bills by, Sec. 12.7
    restoring bill to Consent Calendar by, Sec. 5.9
    restoring bill to Private Calendar by, Sec. 12.13

[[Page 4463]]

    restoring recommitted bill to Private Calendar by, Sec. Sec. 12.14, 
        12.15
    striking bill from Consent Calendar by, Sec. 5.7
    superseding Consent Calendar by, Sec. 6.3
Unfinished business
    precedence of Consent Calendar over, Sec. 6.1
    Private Calendar as, Sec. 11.13





[[Page 4465]]




                               Calendars



 
                               CHAPTER 22
 
                               Calendars
 
                            A. INTRODUCTORY
 
Sec. 1. Calendars of the House


    There are five legislative calendars in the House of 
Representatives. They are: (1) the Calendar of the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union (Union Calendar); (2) the House 
Calendar; (3) the Calendar of the Committee of the Whole House (Private 
Calendar); (4) the Consent Calendar; and (5) the Calendar of Motions to 
Discharge Committees.(1) Rule XIII provides that there shall 
be three calendars for the reference of bills reported from committees: 
(1) a Calendar of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the 
Union for ``. . . bills raising revenue, general appropriation bills, 
and bills of a public character directly or indirectly appropriating 
money or property''; (2) a House Calendar for ``. . . bills of a public 
character not raising revenue nor directly or indirectly appropriating 
money or property''; and (3) a Calendar of the Committee of the Whole 
House for private bills.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. The calling up of motions to discharge committees is treated in Ch. 
        18, supra.
 2. Rule XIII clause 1, House Rules and Manual Sec. 742 (1981).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Favorably reported bills are referred to a calendar by the Speaker. 
Bills adversely reported from a committee are laid on the table unless 
request is made by the committee at the time or by a Member within 
three days that they be referred to a calendar.(3) And bills 
favorably reported and referred to either the House or Union Calendars 
may be placed on the Consent Calendar under a notice procedure at the 
request of any Member.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Rule XIII clause 2, House Rules and Manual Sec. 744 (1981).
 4. Rule XIII clause 4, House Rules and Manual Sec. 746 (1981).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A point of order (5) may be raised that a bill is on the 
wrong calendar when it is called up for consideration.(6) 
However, such a point of order comes too late when consideration of a 
bill in question has begun.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Generally, see Ch. 31, infra.
 6. 6 Cannon's Precedents Sec. Sec. 746, 747.
 7. 7 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 856.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4466]]

    When the Speaker directs the transfer of an erroneously referred 
bill it is transferred to the proper calendar as of the date of its 
original reference.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 6 Cannon's Precedents Sec. Sec. 744-748; see also Sec. 1.2, 
        infra.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Adversely Reported Measures

Sec. 1.1 Measures adversely reported from a committee are not referred 
    to a calendar unless a request is made that they be referred to a 
    calendar.

    On July 15, 1959,(9) Mr. William H. Meyer, of Vermont, 
asked that House Concurrent Resolutions 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 251, 
and 254, which had been reported adversely, be referred to the 
calendar.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 105 Cong. Rec. 13493, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The Speaker (10) ordered the measures referred to the 
Union Calendar.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
11. This procedure was carried out pursuant to Rule XIII clause 2: ``. 
        . . bills reported adversely shall be laid on the table, unless 
        the committee reporting a bill, at the time, or any Member 
        within three days thereafter, shall request its reference to 
        the calendar, when it shall be referred, as provided in clause 
        1 of this rule.'' House Rules and Manual Sec. 744 (1981).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Improperly Referred Bills

Sec. 1.2 When a bill has been erroneously referred to the Union 
    Calendar the Speaker directs its transfer to the proper calendar as 
    of the date it was originally reported from committee.

    On Dec. 7, 1950,(12) Mr. Andrew J. Biemiller, of 
Wisconsin, raised a parliamentary inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 96 Cong. Rec. 16307, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Biemiller: Mr. Speaker, on the 7th of August the bill H.R. 
    7789, which was reported by the Committee on Interstate and Foreign 
    Commerce, was referred to the Union Calendar. I believe that this 
    was done in error and that the bill should have been referred to 
    the House Calendar.
        The Speaker: (13) The Chair has examined the bill 
    and finds that it is not chargeable to the Treasury. Therefore, the 
    reference to the Union Calendar was in error and the bill is now 
    referred to the House Calendar as of the date it was originally 
    reported by the committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------



 
                               CHAPTER 22
 
                               Calendars
 
                            A. INTRODUCTORY
 
Sec. 2. Union and House Calendars

    Public bills favorably reported are first referred to either the

[[Page 4467]]

 Union or House Calendars, and those that are not required to be 
referred to the former are referred to the latter. Bills appropriating 
money or property, are referred to the Union Calendar since they must 
be considered in the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the 
Union.(14) Thus, measures belonging on the Union Calendar 
are those on subjects under the jurisdiction of the Committee of the 
Whole, a discussion of which is found in Chapter 19, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Rule XXIII clause 3, House Rules and Manual Sec. 865 
        (1981).                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consideration in House as in Committee of the Whole

Sec. 2.1 The House has often agreed, by unanimous consent, to consider 
    a Union Calendar bill in the House as in the Committee of the 
    Whole.

    On June 28, 1966,(15) the House adopted a special rule 
(H. Res. 895) for the consideration in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union of a calendared bill (H.R. 5256) changing the 
method of computing the retirement pay of members of the armed forces. 
Then Mr. F. Edward Hebert, of Louisiana, asked unanimous consent that 
that bill be considered in the House as in the Committee of the Whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 112 Cong. Rec. 14547-49, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There was no objection.

Sec. 2.2 Where the House grants unanimous consent for the immediate 
    consideration of a bill on the Union Calendar, the bill is 
    considered in the House as in the Committee of the Whole and 
    debated under the five-minute rule, and motions to strike out the 
    last word are in order.

    On Apr. 6, 1966,(16) Mr. Wilbur D. Mills, of Arkansas, 
asked unanimous consent for the immediate consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 14224) amending the Social Security Act to extend the initial 
period for enrolling under the program of supplementary medical 
insurance benefits for the aged, pending on the Union Calendar.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 112 Cong. Rec. 7749, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. John W. Byrnes, of Wisconsin, then raised a parliamentary 
inquiry:

        Mr. Byrnes of Wisconsin: Mr. Speaker, I make this parliamentary 
    inquiry only that the Members might understand what the 
    opportunities might be for discussion. I make the parliamentary 
    inquiry to the effect that if the request of the gentleman from Ar

[[Page 4468]]

    kansas is agreed to that the bill can be considered under 
    unanimous-consent request--do I state it correctly that there will 
    be the opportunity for striking out the last word and having an 
    opportunity to speak?
        The Speaker: (17) The bill is to be considered in 
    the House as in the Committee of the Whole, and motions to strike 
    out the last word will be in order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Byrnes of Wisconsin: Will the gentleman make the request 
    that the bill be considered in the House as in the Committee of the 
    Whole?
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that the unanimous-consent 
    request will automatically carry that privilege.

Requests for Immediate Consideration

Sec. 2.3 The Speaker may recognize a Member to ask for the immediate 
    consideration of an important bill pending on the Union Calendar.

    On Apr. 6, 1966,(18) the Speaker (19) made 
the following statement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 112 Cong. Rec. 7749, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
19. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: The next order of business is the matters that 
    were passed over from Monday and Tuesday. However, the Chair 
    desires to state that there is a bill out of the Committee on Ways 
    and Means relating to the extension of time for filing for 
    medicare. If there is no objection on the part of the House, the 
    Chair would like to recognize the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. 
    Mills) to submit a unanimous-consent request to bring this bill up. 
    The Chair also understands it is the intention to have a rollcall 
    on the bill. The Chair is trying to work this out for the benefit 
    of the Members. Is there objection to the Chair recognizing the 
    gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Mills), for the purpose stated by the 
    Chair? The Chair hears none and recognizes the gentleman from 
    Arkansas (Mr. Mills).

 
                               CHAPTER 22
 
                               Calendars
 
                          B. CONSENT CALENDAR
 
Sec. 3. In General


    The Consent Calendar is a device provided for in the rules of the 
House of Representatives by which noncontroversial bills and 
resolutions may be granted immediate consideration on the first and 
third Mondays of each month.

[[Page 4469]]

    The rule governing the Consent Calendar (1) was adopted 
on Mar. 15, 1909, and amended in 1924, 1925, 1931, and 
1932.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Rule XIII clause 4, House Rules and Manual Sec. 746 (1981).
 2. A description of the original rule and its subsequent amendments is 
        found in 7 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 972.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


 
                               CHAPTER 22
 
                               Calendars
 
                          B. CONSENT CALENDAR
 
Sec. 4. When in Order

    The applicable House rule (3) provides that the Consent 
Calendar shall be in order on the first and third Mondays of each 
month. However, the House has agreed to consider it on other days to 
assure that it will be called when the House will be in session 
(4) or to dispense with it because of other pressing House 
business.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Rule XIII clause 4, House Rules and Manual Sec. 746 (1981).
 4. See Sec. 4.1, infra.
 5. See Sec. 4.2, infra.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Change of Day for Call

Sec. 4.1 The day for the call of the Consent Calendar is often changed 
    by unanimous consent.

    For example, on Mar. 29, 1961,(6) Mr. John W. McCormack, 
of Massachusetts, asked unanimous consent that the call of the Consent 
Calendar be made in order on the second Tuesday of the month due to the 
adjournment of the House for Easter recess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 107 Cong. Rec. 5289, 5290, 87th Cong. 1st. Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     There was no objection.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. The date has been changed because of the intervention of numerous 
        other holidays. For example: (1) change due to Fourth of July 
        (107 Cong. Rec. 10856, 87th Cong. 1st Sess., June 20, 1961); 
        and (2) change due to Labor Day (109 Cong. Rec. 16159, 88th 
        Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 28, 1963).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Suspension for Other Business

Sec. 4.2 Calls of Consent and Private Calendars may, by unanimous 
    consent, be dispensed with to facilitate consideration of other 
    business.

    On Jan. 31, 1964,(8) Mr. Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, asked 
unanimous consent that the call of the Consent Calendar on the 
following Monday and the Private Calendar on the following Tuesday be 
dispensed with.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 110 Cong. Rec. 1552, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to a parliamentary inquiry, the Majority Leader 
announced that the House would continue to consider the Civil Rights 
Act during this period.
    There was no objection.

[[Page 4470]]

Change of Day by House Resolution

Sec. 4.3 The call of the Consent Calendar on a day other than that 
    specified in Rule XIII clause 4, has been provided for by 
    resolution reported from the Committee on Rules.

    On Aug. 31, 1961,(9) Mr. Richard W. Bolling, of 
Missouri, reported from the Committee on Rules a resolution (H. Res. 
444) that the Consent Calendar be in order on the following Wednesday:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 107 Cong. Rec. 17766, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That the call of the Consent Calendar and 
    consideration of motions to suspend the rules, in order on Monday, 
    September 4, 1961, may be in order on Wednesday, September 6, 1961.

    The resolution was agreed to.



 
                               CHAPTER 22
 
                               Calendars
 
                          B. CONSENT CALENDAR
 
Sec. 5. Calling Measures on the Calendar

    Rule XIII clause 4 provides that measures on the Consent Calendar 
shall be called in numerical order on the first and third Mondays of 
the month after they have been on the calendar for three legislative 
days,(10) that a measure will be passed over until the next 
call when one objection to its consideration is heard, that the measure 
will be stricken from the calendar when three objections to its 
consideration are heard on the second call, and that any measure so 
stricken shall not be restored to the calendar within the same session 
of a Congress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. The status of bills on the Consent Calendar is not affected by 
        their consideration from another calendar and such bills may be 
        called up for consideration from the Consent Calendar while 
        pending as unfinished business in the House or Committee of the 
        Whole. Rule XIII clause 4, House Rules and Manual Sec. 746 
        (1973).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     However, the House has used the unanimous-consent procedure to 
bypass some of these requirements and call bills that have not been on 
the calendar for three legislative days,(11) or which have 
not been on the Consent Calendar at all, to strike bills from the 
calendar,(12) to recommit a measure after withdrawal 
thereof,(13) to restore a measure to the 
calendar,(14) and to have a measure laid on the 
table.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. See Sec. Sec. 5.3, 5.4, infra.
12. See Sec. 5.7, infra.
13. See Sec. 5.8, infra.
14. See Sec. Sec. 5.9, 5.10, infra.
15. See Sec. 5.12, infra.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Three Legislative Days on Calendar Required

Sec. 5.1 Bills must be on the Consent Calendar three legisla

[[Page 4471]]

    tive days in order to be called.

    On Jan. 18, 1932,(16) during the call of the Consent 
Calendar, Mr. Scott Leavitt, of Montana, objected that certain measures 
had not been included. The Speaker quoted an exchange between himself 
and former Speaker Longworth stating the rule that a measure must be on 
the calendar for three consecutive legislative days before its 
consideration would be in order:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 75 Cong. Rec. 2167, 72d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (17) . . . The reasoning of the rule 
    seems to be this: The present occupant of the Chair took the same 
    position that the gentleman from Montana is now taking, and Speaker 
    Longworth, in stating the reasons for his interpretation of the 
    rule, said that the reasons for having bills on the Calendar for 
    three successive legislative days was for the purpose of informing 
    the membership of the House what legislation was likely to come up 
    on Consent Calendar day. In case the House was not in session on 
    Saturday, there was no printed calendar. The result therefore was 
    that the House could not be informed as to the legislation that 
    might come up on the following Consent Calendar day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. John N. Garner (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Waiver of Objection

Sec. 5.2 Bills have been called up on the Consent Calendar, with no 
    objection, even though they had not been on the calendar for three 
    legislative days.

    On Feb. 4, 1963,(18) at the beginning of the call of the 
Consent Calendar, Mr. Wayne N. Aspinall, of Colorado, said:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 109 Cong. Rec. 1630, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Under the rules of the House these bills are not eligible at 
    the present time for consideration.
        I have no objection to the consideration of the bills, however, 
    because I consider each one of them is in order.

    There was no other objection to the consideration of the bills, and 
the calendar was called.

Waiver of Objection by Unanimous Consent

Sec. 5.3 The House has granted consent that certain bills reported by a 
    committee be eligible for consideration on the Consent Calendar 
    although they did not meet the requirement of being on such 
    calendar for three legislative days.

    On June 14, 1951,(19) Mr. John E. Rankin, of 
Mississippi, asked unanimous consent that 13 bills reported by the 
Committee on

[[Page 4472]]

 Veterans' Affairs be placed on the Consent Calendar for the following 
Monday even though the measures would not then have been on the 
calendar for the requisite three legislative days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 97 Cong. Rec. 6605, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There was no objection. .

Sec. 5.4 Unanimous consent has been granted that, in the call of the 
    Consent Calendar, the rule requiring bills to have been on the 
    calendar three legislative days be waived.

    On July 30, 1955,(20) Mr. John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, asked unanimous consent that during the call of the 
Consent Calendar on that day the provision of the rule requiring bills 
to be on that calendar three legislative days in order to be considered 
be waived.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 101 Cong. Rec. 12380, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There was no objection.

Discretion of Speaker

Sec. 5.5 On Consent Calendar days the Speaker may decline to recognize 
    Members for unanimous consent requests for consideration of bills 
    which have not been on such calendar for three legislative days.

    On May 6, 1946,(1) Mr. Overton Brooks, of Louisiana, 
made a parliamentary inquiry as to whether unanimous consent could be 
granted to consider a bill that had not been on the calendar for three 
days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 92 Cong. Rec. 4527, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Speaker (2) responded that he would not recognize 
for such a request unless the bill involved an emergency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Replacing Bill on Calendar in Subsequent Session

Sec. 5.6 Bills stricken from the Consent Calendar during the first 
    session of a Congress may be replaced on such calendar during the 
    second session.

    On Feb. 3, 1936,(3) Mr. Jesse P. Wolcott, of Michigan, 
made a parliamentary inquiry as to why certain measures were on the 
Consent Calendar when they had been objected to and stricken during the 
previous session.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 80 Cong. Rec. 1389, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Chair ruled that the measures were properly on the Consent 
Calendar. He stated the rule as follows:

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (4) The rule is plain. It 
    reads as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. John J. O'Connor (N.Y.).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4473]]

            Should objection be made to the consideration of any bill 
        so called it shall be carried over on the calendar without 
        prejudice to the next day when the Consent Calendar is again 
        called, and if objected to by three or more Members it shall 
        immediately be stricken from the calendar and shall not 
        thereafter during the same session of that Congress be placed 
        again thereon.

Striking Bill by Unanimous Consent

Sec. 5.7 A bill has been stricken from the Consent Calendar by 
    unanimous consent.

    On Mar. 21, 1960,(5) Mr. Clement J. Zablocki, of 
Wisconsin, asked unanimous consent that House Concurrent Resolution 393 
(to promote peace through the reduction of armaments) be stricken from 
the Consent Calendar.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 106 Cong. Rec. 6132, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There was no objection.

Bills Restored to Calendar After Recommittal

Sec. 5.8 A bill withdrawn from the Consent Calendar following one 
    objection and, by unanimous consent, recommitted to the reporting 
    committee, is considered de novo when rereported and replaced on 
    the Consent Calendar, and such bill is carried over until the next 
    call when only one objection to its consideration is again 
    necessary.

    On Aug. 6, 1962,(6) Mr. John V. Lindsay, of New York, 
objected to the consideration on the Consent Calendar of the bill (H.R. 
11363) to amend the Internal Security Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 108 Cong. Rec. 15610, 15611, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Francis E. Walter, of Pennsylvania, made the following 
parliamentary inquiry:

        Mr. Walter: In view of the fact that this bill was objected to 
    previously, and was rereferred to the committee for the purpose of 
    amplifying the report, that this was done and it was then 
    reinstated on the calendar, are not three objections necessary?
        The Speaker: (7) The present bill is on the calendar 
    de novo. It has a new number and a new report. At this stage one 
    objection is all that is necessary.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
 8. See Sec. 8, infra, for a general discussion of the effect of 
        objections to measures called on the Consent Calendar.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Restoring Bill by Unanimous Consent

Sec. 5.9 A bill objected to by three Members and stricken from the 
    Consent Calendar may be restored to such calendar by unanimous 
    consent.

    On May 16, 1938,(9) Mr. Jesse P. Wolcott, of Michigan, 
raised the

[[Page 4474]]

point of order that it was improper to consider on the Consent Calendar 
a bill to provide for the establishment of a national monument, since 
that bill had previously been objected to and stricken from the 
calendar. The Chair responded:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 83 Cong. Rec. 6921, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (10) The Chair is informed that the 
    Record will show that on May 3 on motion of Mr. McLean, by 
    unanimous consent, the bill was restored to the Consent Calendar. 
    Under these circumstances the Chair feels, the action having been 
    taken by unanimous consent of the House, that the point of order is 
    not well taken.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Wolcott: I may say to the Chair that I was not advised that 
    it had been restored by unanimous consent. I withdraw my point of 
    order.

Restoring Bill by Vacating Previous Proceedings

Sec. 5.10 Proceedings whereby a bill was passed on the Consent Calendar 
    have been, by unanimous consent, vacated and the bill restored to 
    the Consent Calendar.

    On Feb. 2, 1960,(11) Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa, asked 
unanimous consent that the proceedings by which the bill (H.R. 8074) to 
amend the Agricultural Act of 1954 was passed on the Consent Calendar 
be vacated and the bill be restored to the Consent Calendar.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 106 Cong. Rec. 1782, 1784, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There was no objection.

Sec. 5.11 Proceedings where a resolution on the Consent Calendar had 
    been agreed to have been vacated and the measure restored to the 
    calendar and later passed under suspension of the rules.

    On Feb. 2, 1960,(12) Mr. Barratt O'Hara, of Illinois, 
asked unanimous consent that the proceedings whereby House Concurrent 
Resolution 465 (expressing the indignation of Congress at the recent 
desecration of houses of worship) was agreed to on the Consent Calendar 
be vacated. The measure was restored to the calendar and scheduled for 
vote under suspension of the rules. The resolution was then called up 
under suspension of the rules and agreed to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 106 Cong. Rec. 1784, 1809, 1816, 1817, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tabling Measures Called on Calendar

Sec. 5.12 A joint resolution called on the Consent Calendar was by 
    unanimous consent laid on the table, an identical Senate measure 
    having passed the House several days before.

[[Page 4475]]

    On Dec. 17, 1963,(13) Mr. Emanuel Celler, of New York, 
asked unanimous consent that a joint resolution (H.J. Res. 852) to 
authorize subpena power for the Commission on the Assassination of 
President John F. Kennedy called on the Consent Calendar be tabled 
since an identical Senate measure had passed the House several days 
before.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 109 Cong. Rec. 24788, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There was no objection.



 
                               CHAPTER 22
 
                               Calendars
 
                          B. CONSENT CALENDAR
 
Sec. 6. Precedence Over Other House Business

    The Consent Calendar is called on the first and third Mondays 
immediately after approval of the Journal.(14) It takes 
precedence over motions to resolve into Committee of the Whole for 
consideration of revenue and appropriation bills,(15) 
contested election cases,(16) and unfinished business on 
which the previous question was pending at adjournment on the previous 
day.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Rule XIII clause 4, House Rules and Manual Sec. 746 (1981).
15. 7 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 986.
16. 7 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 988.
17. See Sec. 6.1, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The calendar yields to reports from the Committee on 
Rules,(18) questions of privilege,(19) and 
resolutions of inquiry.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 59 Cong. Rec. 598, 66th Cong. 2d Sess., Dec. 15, 1919.
19. 6 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 553.
20. 6 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 409.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Precedence Over Unfinished Business

Sec. 6.1 The calling of the Consent Calendar on the first and third 
    Mondays of the month has precedence over unfinished business coming 
    over from the previous day on which the previous question was 
    ordered.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Business under consideration on ``consent day'' and undisposed of 
        at adjournment does not come up as unfinished business on the 
        following legislative day but goes over to the next day when 
        that class of business is again in order. 7 Cannon's Precedents 
        Sec. 1005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On Mar. 17, 1934,(2) during consideration of the cotton 
control bill (H.R. 8402), Mr. Joseph W. Byrns, of Tennessee, raised the 
following parliamentary inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 78 Cong. Rec. 4721, 73d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Byrns: Suppose this bill should reach the previous-question 
    stage today and a roll call be ordered, would the roll call be in 
    order at 12 o'clock on Monday?
        The Speaker: (3) The Chair reads from Cannon's 
    Procedure, referring to the call of the Consent Calendar on Monday, 
    which includes suspensions:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Henry T. Rainey (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            It (the calling of the Consent Calendar) also has 
        precedence of con

[[Page 4476]]

        tested-election cases and unfinished business coming over from 
        the previous day with the previous question ordered. . . .

        Mr. [John J.] O'Connor (of New York): Mr. Speaker, I understand 
    that the question just read is based on a decision by Mr. Speaker 
    Gillett reported in Hinds' Precedents. Mr. Gillett's decision does 
    not go as far as that. What Mr. Speaker Gillett held was that it 
    was discretionary, and that the vote was of equal privilege with 
    the calling of the Consent Calendar, and therefore it would be in 
    the discretion of the Speaker.
        The Speaker: Since the rule is mandatory, we would have to go 
    ahead with the consideration of the Consent Calendar.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. But see 7 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 990 for a ruling by Speaker 
        Frederick H. Gillett (Mass.) that a vote on a matter on which 
        the previous question is ordered and the call of the Consent 
        Calendar are both privileged on the day for the call of the 
        Consent Calendar.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Precedence of Conference Report

Sec. 6.2 Consideration of conference reports may take precedence over 
    the calling of the Consent Calendar.

    On Nov. 30, 1945,(5) Mr. Clarence Cannon, of Missouri, 
and Mr. John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, asked unanimous consent 
that consideration of a conference report take precedence over the call 
of the Consent Calendar on the following Monday. The Chair ruled:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 91 Cong. Rec. 11279, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (6) It is not necessary to obtain 
    unanimous consent for that. The Chair can recognize the gentleman 
    to call up the conference report before the call of the Consent 
    Calendar and will do so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Superseding Calendar by Unanimous Consent

Sec. 6.3 A unanimous-consent agreement providing for a special order of 
    business may supersede the call of the Consent Calendar.

    On Mar. 4, 1957,(7) the House granted unanimous consent 
that Mr. Frederic R. Coudert, Jr., of New York, address the House for 
one hour to commemorate the 168th anniversary of the Congress. Mr. 
Wayne N. Aspinall, of Colorado, raised a parliamentary inquiry as to 
whether the Consent Calendar was the proper business before the House. 
The Chair responded:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 103 Cong. Rec. 2753, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (8) Not before this recognition. This 
    was made the special order of business at this time.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
 9. Compare 7 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 978, indicating that the Speaker 
        may decline to recognize a request for unanimous consent to 
        call other business when the Consent Calendar is in order.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4477]]



 
                               CHAPTER 22
 
                               Calendars
 
                          B. CONSENT CALENDAR
 
Sec. 7. Measures Qualified for the Calendar

    Measures on the Consent Calendar are first referred to the Union or 
House Calendars.(10) A private bill does not 
qualify.(11) To qualify, a measure must involve a 
legislative proposition,(12) and, generally, must meet the 
criteria established by the official objectors.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. See Sec. 1, supra.
11. See Sec. 7.3, infra.
12. 7 Cannon's Precedents Sec. Sec. 980-982.
13. See Sec. 7.4, infra.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bills Relating to Citizens of Foreign Government

Sec. 7.1 Bills providing for payment of money to a foreign government 
    for the purpose of indemnifying its citizens for injuries are 
    public bills and are properly referred to the Consent Calendar.

    On Feb. 1, 1937,(14) Mr. Jesse P. Wolcott, of Michigan, 
directed a parliamentary inquiry as to why certain measures were on the 
Consent Calendar rather than the Private Calendar since they provided 
for payments to a foreign country on behalf of citizens of that 
country. The Speaker ruled as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 81 Cong. Rec. 649, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (15) In answer to the question of the 
    gentleman from Michigan, the Chair is of the opinion that the bills 
    to which the gentleman refers are properly on the Consent Calendar 
    under the rules of the House. The gentleman will note that these 
    bills provide for the payment of moneys to a foreign government; 
    and, under the rules, they are public bills and properly on the 
    Consent Calendar.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 7.2 A bill which authorizes the payment of an indemnity to another 
    government on account of losses sustained by a subject of that 
    government, is not a private bill, and is, therefore, properly on 
    the Consent Calendar.

    On June 25, 1930,(16) Mr. Fiorello H. LaGuardia, of New 
York, made the point of order that a bill (H.R. 9702) on the Consent 
Calendar authorizing payment to the British Government on behalf of H. 
W. Bennett belonged to the Private Calendar. The Chair responded:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 72 Cong. Rec. 11728, 71st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (17) The gentleman from New 
    York makes the

[[Page 4478]]

    point of order that this bill is not in order on the Consent 
    Calendar. This bill authorizes the payment of an indemnity to the 
    British Government. The Chair overrules the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Robert Luce (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bills Applicable to a Class

Sec. 7.3 A bill that specifies individuals or entities qualifies for 
    the Private Calendar; but where a bill applies to a class and not 
    to individuals as such, it then becomes a general bill and is 
    entitled to a place on the Consent Calendar.

    On Mar. 17, 1930,(18) Mr. William H. Stafford, of 
Wisconsin, raised a point of order concerning the consideration of a 
bill ``For the relief of certain newspapers for advertising services 
rendered the Public Health Service of the Treasury Department'' on the 
grounds that the bill belonged on the Private Calendar and not the 
Consent Calendar. The Chair ruled:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 72 Cong. Rec. 1526, 71st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (19) . . . Where a bill 
    affects an individual, individuals, corporations, institutions, and 
    so forth, it should and does go to the Private Calendar. Where it 
    applies to a class and not to individuals as such, it then becomes 
    a general bill and would be entitled to a place on the Consent 
    Calendar. In the judgment of the Chair this bill, while affecting a 
    class of concerns, specifies individuals, and for the purposes of 
    the rule the Chair holds that the bill is improperly on this 
    calendar and transfers it as of the date of the original reference 
    to the Private Calendar.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Earl C. Michener (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Official Objectors' Criteria

Sec. 7.4 Special criteria which measures must satisfy in order to 
    qualify for placement on the Consent Calendar are provided by the 
    Consent Calendar objectors.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Generally, the leadership of both parties appoints objectors' 
        committees at the beginning of the Congress to screen measures 
        on the Consent Calendar. Such committees are generally composed 
        of three Members from each party. See, for example, 113 Cong. 
        Rec. 3509, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Feb. 16, 1967.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On Mar. 17, 1969,(1) Mr. Wayne N. Aspinall, of Colorado, 
introduced into the Record a written statement signed by both majority 
objectors and minority objectors for the Consent Calendar setting

[[Page 4479]]

forth certain criteria a measure should satisfy in order to qualify for 
the calendar. The statement declared that to qualify a bill must (1) 
involve an aggregate cost of less than $1 million; (2) include no 
change in national or international policy; (3) be not of general 
application (or of interest to districts of more than a majority of the 
Members); or, if of wide application, the Members should be fully 
informed and the bill cleared by the leadership on both sides of the 
aisle; and (4) a Bureau of the Budget report must have been made on the 
bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 115 Cong. Rec. 6543, 6544, 91st Cong. 1st Sess. For announcement of 
        similar statements in other Congresses see: (1) 111 Cong. Rec. 
        3842, 3843, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 1, 1965; (2) 107 Cong. 
        Rec. 5661, 87th Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 12, 1961; and (3) 105 
        Cong. Rec. 2858, 86th Cong. 1st Sess., Feb. 24, 1959.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 
                               CHAPTER 22
 
                               Calendars
 
                          B. CONSENT CALENDAR
 
Sec. 8. Objection to or Passing Over Measures on the Calendar

    The leadership of each party will ordinarily appoint official 
objectors at the beginning of each Congress to screen measures on the 
Consent Calendar to determine whether or not they are properly placed 
thereon. They may interpose an objection whenever a measure fails to 
meet the announced criteria that it must satisfy in order to be called 
on a Consent Calendar day.(2) Objection may also be raised 
to such a measure by one or more Members under the Consent Calendar 
rule. It provides that the first time a measure is called on the 
Consent Calendar only one objection is required to prevent its 
consideration. The measure is then called on the next calendar day and 
will be considered for debate and passage unless three or more Members 
object. If three Members then object, the measure is stricken from the 
calendar.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. See Sec. 7.4, supra, as to Consent Calendar criteria.
 3. See Rule XIII clause 4, House Rules and Manual Sec. 746 (1981).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Objection to the consideration of a measure comes too late when 
debate has begun.(4) However, a Member may reserve the right 
to object and proceed to debate the measure.(5) And the 
unanimous-consent procedure has been used to pass over a measure 
without prejudice (6) and to restore a measure to the 
calendar.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Sec. Sec. 8.1 et seq., infra. Also see 7 Cannon's Precedents 
        Sec. 998.
 5. Sec. Sec. 8.4, infra.
 6. Sec. Sec. 8.6, infra.
 7. Sec. Sec. 5.9, supra.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Timeliness of Objections

Sec. 8.1 An objection to the consideration of a bill on the Consent 
    Calendar comes too late after an amendment to the bill has been 
    offered and debated.

[[Page 4480]]

    On Aug. 7, 1961,(8) Mr. L. Mendel Rivers, of South 
Carolina, asked that the bill (H.R. 7913), to bring the number of 
cadets at the U.S. Military Academy and the U.S. Air Force Academy up 
to full strength, be passed over without prejudice. His request came 
while the bill was being considered and after an amendment thereto had 
been offered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 107 Cong. Rec. 14738, 14739, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Speaker pro tempore (9) ruled that the objection 
came too late, the question on the floor being the amendment to the 
bill, not whether it should be considered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 8.2 Objections to the consideration of a bill on the Consent 
    Calendar come too late after the bill and amendments have been read 
    and the pending question is on the passage of the bill.

    On Aug. 31, 1959,(10) Mr. Thomas B. Curtis, of Missouri, 
raised a parliamentary inquiry as to whether three objections could be 
heard to a bill (H.R. 2247) conveying certain real property of the 
United States. The Speaker pro tempore (11) ruled that such 
objections could not be heard since the time therefor had passed, 
amendments had been read and the pending question was on the passage of 
the bill itself.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 105 Cong. Rec. 17404, 17405, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
11. Frank N. Ikard (Tex).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 8.3 An objection to passing over a bill without prejudice on the 
    Consent Calendar comes too late after consideration of the next 
    bill has begun.

    On Jan. 16, 1956,(12) Mr. Francis E. Walter, of 
Pennsylvania, objected to a unanimous-consent request to pass over a 
bill without prejudice, after such unanimous consent had been granted 
and consideration of the next bill had begun.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 102 Cong. Rec. 593, 84th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Speaker (13) ruled that such objection came too late 
and was of no effect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reservation of Objection

Sec. 8.4 When the Chair inquires whether there is objection to 
    consideration of a bill on the Consent Calendar, any Member may 
    reserve the right to object and thus secure time for debate. 
    However, any Member may demand the regular order and thus re

[[Page 4481]]

    quire that the objection be exercised or withdrawn.

    On Apr. 4, 1932,(14) Mr. William H. Stafford, of 
Wisconsin, addressed a parliamentary inquiry as to the effect of a 
reservation of the right to object to a measure on the Consent 
Calendar.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 75 Cong. Rec. 7412, 72d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Stafford: Mr. Speaker, I wish to inquire whether when a 
    bill has been objected to and is again on the Consent Calendar and 
    the bill is called is it permissible to reserve objection, or is it 
    necessary to object forthwith? . . .
        The Speaker: (15) Objection can be reserved and the 
    bill discussed for three hours, or more if the House would permit 
    it, and whenever any gentleman calls for the regular order then the 
    Member must object or else withdraw his objection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. John N. Garner (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Stafford: Then if three Members reserve the right to 
    object, that will meet the requirements of the objection stage 
    until the regular order is demanded?
        The Speaker: It is the Chair's understanding of the rule that 
    any one Member can reserve the right to object and as long as the 
    House permits him to discuss the matter he may continue. That is 
    within the control of the membership of the House.

Objection by the Speaker

Sec. 8.5 The Speaker has objected to the consideration of a bill on the 
    Consent Calendar.

    On July 16, 1946,(16) the Speaker (17) from 
the chair objected to the consideration of a bill on the Consent 
Calendar (H.R. 3129) to amend the Securities Exchange Act to limit the 
power of the Securities Exchange Commission to regulate transactions in 
exempted securities, such bill having been passed over the first time 
it was called on the Consent Calendar.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 92 Cong. Rec. 9095, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
17. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Passing Over Without Prejudice

Sec. 8.6 Official objectors may ask unanimous consent to pass over a 
    measure without prejudice (18) when in their opin

[[Page 4482]]

    ion time is needed to apprise all Members as to the status of the 
    measure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Rule XIII clause 4, House Rules and Manual (1981), provides that 
        the first time a measure is called on the Consent Calendar and 
        objection is heard ``. . . to the consideration of any bill so 
        called it shall be carried over on the calendar without 
        prejudice to the next day when the `Consent Calendar' is again 
        called. . . .'' The term `without prejudice' in the rule means 
        merely that a measure will remain on the calendar until the 
        next call of the calendar. However, the term ``without 
        prejudice'' as used by the official objectors means that the 
        measure will be treated as though it had not been called the 
        first time, so that only one objection would be required to 
        prevent consideration the next time the measure is called on 
        the Consent Calendar. See 7 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 1000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On Mar. 15, 1955,(1) during the call of the Consent 
Calendar of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 107) to release United 
States reversionary rights to school land in California, Mr. Paul 
Cunningham, of Iowa, made the following remarks:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 101 Cong. Rec. 2931, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . (T)he Members of the Consent Calendar objectors committee 
    are not here to obstruct the passage of the legislation nor to 
    interfere with the proper consideration or passage of the bill of 
    any Member. On the contrary, our purpose is, in addition to what 
    the gentleman from North Carolina has already said, to expedite the 
    passage of legislation, at the same time protecting Members from 
    having bills passed by unanimous consent that should not be passed 
    by unanimous consent. . . . Therefore, we have at times asked 
    unanimous consent to pass over bills without prejudice when we were 
    not opposed to the bill at all and would personally vote for it if 
    it came up under a rule. However, the Members of the objectors 
    committee feel that time should be given so that all of the Members 
    of the House can be fully apprised of what is happening or what may 
    happen.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. For a similar statement of the purpose of passing over without 
        prejudice see the remarks of Mr. Wayne N. Aspinall (Colo.) at 
        103 Cong. Rec. 2249, 85th Cong. 1st Sess., Feb. 19, 1957.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 8.7 A bill called on the Consent Calendar has been passed over 
    without prejudice at the Speaker's request.

    On Apr. 4, 1966,(3) at the call on the Consent Calendar 
of the resolution (H.J. Res. 837) to authorize the President to 
proclaim State and Municipal Bond Week, the Speaker (4) 
asked that the resolution be passed over without prejudice. There was 
no objection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 112 Cong. Rec. 7482, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
 4. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------



 
                               CHAPTER 22
 
                               Calendars
 
                          B. CONSENT CALENDAR
 
Sec. 9. Debate; Amendment of Measures

Consideration as in Committee of the Whole

Sec. 9.1 Parliamentarian's Note: Bills (and amendments thereto) on the 
    Consent Calendar (if also pending on the Union Calendar) are 
    considered in the House as in the Committee of the Whole under the 
    five-minute rule (Sec. Sec. 9.3, 9.4, infra). However, where a bill 
    is on the House Calendar and is considered on the Consent Calendar, 
    or where

[[Page 4483]]

    a Union Calendar bill or any bill requiring consideration in 
    Committee of the Whole is considered by unanimous consent and the 
    request includes a stipulation that the bill be considered in the 
    House, it is considered under the ``hour rule'' and no amendments 
    are in order except by the Member calling up the bill or unless the 
    previous question is rejected.

Sec. 9.2 Where the House, during the call of the Consent Calendar, 
    grants unanimous consent for the immediate consideration of a Union 
    Calendar bill it is considered in the House as in Committee of the 
    Whole, and any Member may offer a germane amendment.

    On Aug. 3, 1970,(5) during the call on the Consent 
Calendar of the bill (H.R. 9804), to authorize the construction of 
supplemental irrigation facilities for an irrigation district, Mr. John 
P. Saylor, of Pennsylvania, raised a parliamentary inquiry as to 
whether it would be in order to offer an amendment to the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 116 Cong. Rec. 26981, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Chair responded:

        The Speaker: (6) If the bill comes up by unanimous 
    consent, an amendment would be in order because the bill then would 
    be before the House (as in Committee of the Whole) for 
    consideration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scope of Debate

Sec. 9.3 In the consideration of bills on the Consent Calendar there 
    may be debate under the five-minute rule, but such debate must be 
    confined to the bill.

    On May 3, 1948,(7) during consideration of a bill (S. 
1545) for the construction of a bridge and roads in Colonial National 
Historical Park, Yorktown, Va., the debate strayed to partisan national 
issues. On objection, the Chair (8) ruled that such debate 
was out of order, but allowed such debate to continue by unanimous 
consent for a limited period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 94 Cong. Rec. 5198, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
 8. Joseph W. Martin, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Application of Five-minute Rule

Sec. 9.4 Debate on an amendment to a bill on the Consent Calendar is 
    under the five-minute rule.

    On July 30, 1955,(9) during consideration of the bill on 
the Con

[[Page 4484]]

sent Calendar (H.R. 6857) to authorize the conveyance of certain land 
to the city of Milwaukee, Wis., Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, 
offered an amendment. The Speaker (10) recognized the 
gentleman for five minutes in support of his amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 101 Cong. Rec. 12408, 12409, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
10. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Offering Amendments

Sec. 9.5 Unanimous consent is not required to offer an amendment to a 
    Union Calendar bill on the Consent Calendar which is being 
    considered by unanimous consent in the House as in the Committee of 
    the Whole under the five-minute rule.

    On Aug. 3, 1970,(11) during consideration on the Consent 
Calendar of the bill (H.R. 9804), to authorize the construction of 
certain irrigation facilities, Mr. John P. Saylor, of Pennsylvania, 
announced his intention to offer an amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 116 Cong. Rec. 26982, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Harold T. Johnson, of California, then raised a parliamentary 
inquiry as to whether Mr. Saylor must obtain unanimous consent to offer 
his amendment.
    The Chair responded as follows:

        The Speaker: (12) The Chair will state that if 
    unanimous consent is granted for the consideration of the House 
    bill . . . then the matter would be before the House (as in 
    Committee of the Whole) under the five-minute rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Advance Notice of Amendments

Sec. 9.6 In considering bills on the Consent Calendar, it is the 
    practice of those Members desiring to offer material amendments to 
    give notice of their intentions before consent is granted for the 
    consideration of the measure.

    On Feb. 1, 1932,(13) during consideration of a bill to 
expand McKinley National Park, Mr. James Wickersham, the Delegate from 
Alaska, offered an amendment that was objected to on the grounds that 
no prior notice of the amendment had been given. The Chair made the 
following statement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 75 Cong. Rec. 1610, 72d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (14) The Chair will make this 
    statement: It has been customary for gentlemen asking unanimous 
    consent for the consideration of a bill to give notice to the House 
    if they propose to offer a material amendment so that the House may 
    have knowledge of the amendment and give consent to the 
    consideration of the amendment as well as to the bill; otherwise a 
    bill

[[Page 4485]]

    could be called up and amendments could be offered which would be 
    very material and far-reaching in their nature. The Chair thinks 
    that notice should be given before consent is given for the 
    consideration of a bill, that amendments will be proposed, so that 
    the membership of the House may have knowledge of what is coming 
    up.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. John N. Garner (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        So the Chair suggests to the Delegate from Alaska that he 
    either withdraw his amendment or allow the bill to go over so that 
    the matter may be considered on the next consent day.

Recommitting Amended Bill

Sec. 9.7 A bill on the Consent Calendar, having been considered and 
    amended, was by motion recommitted to committee.

    On Apr. 4, 1949,(15) during consideration of a bill 
(H.R. 1823) on the Consent Calendar to establish a Women's Reserve as a 
branch of the Coast Guard Reserve, Mr. Vito Marcantonio, of New York, 
offered an amendment to prohibit segregation or discrimination in such 
reserve.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 95 Cong. Rec. 3806, 3807, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The amendment was agreed to.
    Mr. Herbert C. Bonner, of North Carolina, offered a motion to 
recommit the bill.
    The motion was agreed to.

Striking Enacting Clause

Sec. 9.8 The enacting clause of a bill on the Consent Calendar was 
    stricken after consideration had been granted to such bill.

    On Dec. 19, 1932,(16) Mr. Fiorello H. LaGuardia, of New 
York, moved, after the time for objection had passed, that the enacting 
clause be stricken from a bill on the Consent Calendar providing for 
the construction of a bridge over the Mississippi River.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 76 Cong. Rec. 695, 696, 72d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The motion was agreed to.

Raising Point of Order

Sec. 9.9 A point of order that a committee report on a bill does not 
    comply with the Ramseyer rule (17) will not lie when 
    such bill is called on the Consent Calendar until consideration of 
    such bill is granted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Rule XIII clause 3, House Rules and Manual Sec. 745 (1981).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On Dec. 15, 1941,(18) Mr. John J. Cochran, of Missouri, 
made the point of order during the call for objections that the bill 
(H.R. 4648), for the construction of water conservation projects, did 
not comply with the Ramseyer rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 87 Cong. Rec. 9799, 9800, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Chair replied:

[[Page 4486]]

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (19) The gentleman's point 
    of order is premature, inasmuch as the bill is not now before the 
    House for consideration. The Chair overrules the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. William M. Whittington (Miss.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------



 
                               CHAPTER 22
 
                               Calendars
 
                   C. PRIVATE CALENDAR; PRIVATE BILLS
 
Sec. 10. In General


    Taken up here are the procedures involved in the consideration and 
passage of private bills. The nature and form of private bills as 
legislation are treated in Chapter 24, infra.
    Where a bill affects an individual, individuals, corporations, 
institutions, and so forth, it should and does go to the Private 
Calendar. Where it applies to a class and not to individuals as such, 
it then becomes a general bill and would be entitled to a place on the 
Consent Calendar. See Sec. 7.3, supra.



 
                               CHAPTER 22
 
                               Calendars
 
                   C. PRIVATE CALENDAR; PRIVATE BILLS
 
Sec. 11. Calling Up

    The Private Calendar is called on the first and third Tuesdays of 
the month. It is mandatory on the first Tuesday and discretionary with 
the Speaker on the third Tuesday.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. See Rule XXIV clause 6, House Rules and Manual Sec. 893 (1981)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Individual private bills have been considered at other times by 
special order or by unanimous consent.(1) The call of the 
Private Calendar itself has by unanimous consent been transferred to 
other days(2) or dispensed with altogether due to other 
pressing House business.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. See Sec. 11.5, 11.7, infra.
 2. See Sec. 11.8, infra.
 3. The Private Calendar was dispensed with during the week of 
        consideration of the Civil Rights Act of 1963. 110 Cong. Rec.  
        1552, 88th Cong. 2d Sess., Jan. 31, 1964.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Omnibus private bills are numerous private bills grouped together 
under one bill number for consideration and passage and resolved into 
individual bills for presentation to the President or transmittal to 
the Senate. They have precedence on the third Tuesday, and are not in 
order on the first Tuesday.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. See Sec. Sec. 11.1, 11.2, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the rule the Private Calendar is called on the first and 
third Tuesdays ``. . . after the disposal of such business on the 
Speaker's table as requires ref

[[Page 4487]]

erence only. . . .'' (5) However, the House has agreed by 
unanimous consent to consider business other than referrals before the 
Private Calendar is called at its regular time.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Rule XXIV clause 6, House Rules and Manual Sec. 893 (1981).
 6. See Sec. Sec. 11.11, 11.12, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                 Forms

        Form of resolution providing for the consideration of the 
    Private Calendar at an evening session.

                                  H. Res. 364

        Resolved, That on Friday, January 27, 1933, it shall be in 
    order to move that the House take a recess until 8 o'clock p.m., 
    and that at the evening session until 10:30 p.m. it shall be in 
    order to consider bills on the Private Calendar unobjected to in 
    the House as in Committee of the Whole. The call of bills on said 
    calendar to begin at No. 536.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 76 Cong. Rec. 2328, 72d Cong. 2d 
        Sess.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Time for Consideration of Private Bills

Sec. 11.1 The consideration of Private Calendar bills on the first 
    Tuesday of the month is mandatory unless the House by a two-thirds 
    vote dispenses with such business, and the rule has been 
    interpreted to prohibit the consideration of omnibus bills on that 
    day.

    On June 18, 1935,(8) before the consideration of the 
bill (H.R. 8492) to amend the Agricultural Adjustment Act, Mr. Thomas 
L. Blanton, of Texas, raised a parliamentary inquiry as to whether 
certain bills on the Private Calendar would be in order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 179 Cong. Rec. 9548, 9549, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (9) . . . The Chair may say in 
    explanation of the statement made a while ago and in further 
    amplification of that statement that the first section of the rule 
    which applies to the first Tuesday in the month does not include 
    omnibus bills. It provides that on the first Tuesday of the month 
    the Speaker shall direct the calling of the Private Calendar, and 
    the rule cannot be dispensed with except by a two-thirds vote of 
    the House. The second paragraph, which covers the third Tuesday in 
    the month, provides that the Speaker may direct the calling of the 
    Private Calendar, and there is no provision to the effect it shall 
    not be dispensed with.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Joseph W. Byrns (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 11.2 Omnibus private bills may not be considered on the first 
    Tuesday of the month other than by unanimous consent.

    On Feb. 3, 1936,(10) Mr. John J. Cochran, of Missouri, 
raised a parliamentary inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 80 Cong. Rec. 1377, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4488]]

        Mr. Cochran: Mr. Speaker, I received notice from the Whip this 
    morning to the effect that bills on the Private Calendar would be 
    called tomorrow. Does that mean that an omnibus claim bill may be 
    called up tomorrow? . . .
        The Speaker: (11) The House may by unanimous consent 
    agree to the consideration of such a bill, but . . . omnibus bills 
    may not be considered unless unanimous consent is given. Only 
    individual bills on the Private Calendar may be considered 
    tomorrow.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Joseph W. Byrns (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Precedence of Omnibus Bills

Sec. 11.3 Consideration of omnibus private bills on the third Tuesday 
    of the month is discretionary with the Speaker inasmuch as under 
    the rules such business does not take precedence over other 
    privileged business of the House.

    On Apr. 20, 1937,(12) Mr. Samuel Dickstein, of New York, 
raised a parliamentary inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 81 Cong. Rec. 3645, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Dickstein: Mr. Speaker, this is the (third Tuesday) day on 
    which omnibus bills on the Private Calendar could be taken up. I 
    thought this would be the appropriate day to bring before the House 
    the omnibus bill that has been reported by our committee for the 
    consideration of the House. I understand that under the rule it is 
    not mandatory.

    The Speaker (13) responded, citing a decision of Speaker 
Byrns, that the call of the Private Calendar on the third Tuesday of 
the month is discretionary with the Speaker under the rule:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . This question was raised when the late lamented Speaker 
    Byrns was in the chair, and he gave the following construction to 
    the provision of the rule which the Chair has just 
    read,(14) as appears in the Congressional Record of June 
    18, 1935, Seventy-fourth Congress, first session:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Rule XXIV clause 6, paragraph 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            The consideration of private bills on the third Tuesday of 
        the month is discretionary with the Speaker, inasmuch as under 
        the rules such business does not take precedence over other 
        privileged business of the House.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 79 Cong. Rec. 9548, 74th Cong. 1st Sess., June 18, 1935.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 11.4 Where the Speaker in his discretion directs the Clerk to call 
    the Private Calendar on the third Tuesday of the month, omnibus 
    bills on the calendar are called before individual bills thereon.

    On Feb. 17, 1970,(16) the House considered and passed 
the omnibus private bill (H.R. 15062) for the relief of sundry 
claimants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 116 Cong. Rec. 3605-13, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Speaker pro tempore then directed the Clerk to call the first

[[Page 4489]]

individual bill on the Private Calendar.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. ``On the third Tuesday of each month . . . the Speaker may direct 
        the Clerk to call the bills and resolutions on the Private 
        Calendar, preference to be given to omnibus bills containing 
        bills or resolutions which have previously been objected to on 
        a call of the Private Calendar. . . .'' Rule XXIV clause 6, 
        House Rules and Manual Sec. 893 (1981).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consideration by Special Order

Sec. 11.5 The House may provide for the consideration of a private bill 
    in the Committee of the Whole pursuant to a special order.

    On Aug. 13, 1940,(18) the House considered and agreed to 
House Resolution 407 providing for the immediate consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a private bill (H.R. 7230) authorizing an 
appeal to the Supreme Court from a decision of the Court of Claims. The 
resolution further provided for the reporting of such bill to the House 
with any amendments. The bill itself was later defeated in the House--
ayes 60, noes 115.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 86 Cong. Rec. 10258-74, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
19. Id. at p. 10282.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 11.6 Pursuant to a special order from the Rules Committee, the 
    House may provide for the consideration of a private bill in the 
    Committee of the Whole and for the reporting of such bill to the 
    House with any amendments.

    On June 13, 1940,(20) the House considered and agreed to 
the following resolution:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 86 Cong. Rec. 8181, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            House Resolution 511

        Resolved, That immediately upon adoption of this resolution it 
    shall be in order to move that the House resolve itself into the 
    Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for 
    consideration of H.R. 9766, a bill to authorize the deportation of 
    Harry Renton Bridges. That after general debate, which shall be 
    confined to the bill and shall continue not to exceed 1 hour, to be 
    equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
    member of the Committee on Immigration and Naturalization, the bill 
    shall be read for amendment under the 5-minute rule. At the 
    conclusion of the reading of the bill for amendment the Committee 
    shall rise and report the same to the House with such amendments as 
    may have been adopted, and the previous question shall be 
    considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final 
    passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit.

Consideration of Private Bill Before Call of Calendar

Sec. 11.7 By unanimous consent, a bill on the Private Calendar

[[Page 4490]]

    was brought up and passed just prior to the call of that calendar.

    On Aug. 3, 1965,(1) before the call of the Private 
Calendar, Mr. George F. Senner, Jr., of Arizona, asked unanimous 
consent for the immediate consideration of the private bill (S. 618) 
for the relief of Nora Isabella Samuelli. There was no objection to Mr. 
Senner's request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 111 Cong. Rec. 19202-05, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Call of Calendar Transferred to Another Day

Sec. 11.8 The call of the Consent and Private Calendars was by 
    unanimous consent made in order on the second Tuesday of the month 
    due to the adjournment of the House for Easter recess.

    The Private Calendar is frequently made in order on days other than 
that specified in the rules by special order of the House. For example, 
on Mar. 29, 1961,(2) Mr. John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, asked unanimous consent that on Tuesday, Apr. 11, 1961, 
it be in order to consider business on the Consent Calendar and the 
Private Calendar.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 107 Cong. Rec. 5289, 5290, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There was no objection.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. The transfer of call of the Private Calendar to other days has been 
        effected for numerous other reasons. For example: (1) Fourth of 
        July recess, 109 Cong. Rec. 11774, 88th Cong. 1st Sess., June 
        26, 1963; (2) before expected adjournment sine die, 113 Cong. 
        Rec. 25952, 25953, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Dec. 12 1967; and (3) 
        death of a Member, 110 Cong. Rec. 5, 88th Cong. 2d Sess., Jan. 
        7, 1964.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consideration on District Monday

Sec. 11.9 It is in order on District Monday for the Committee on the 
    District of Columbia to call up bills on the Private Calendar that 
    have been reported by that committee.

    On May 26, 1930,(4) it being District of Columbia Day, 
Mr. Clarence J. McLeod, of Michigan, asked unanimous consent to take up 
the bill on the Private Calendar (H.R. 3048) to exempt from taxation 
certain property of the National Society of the Sons of the American 
Revolution in the District of Columbia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 73 Cong. Rec. 9607, 71st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. William H. Stafford, of Wisconsin, reserved the right to object 
and noted that this being a Pri

[[Page 4491]]

vate Calendar bill it was not in order at that time. The Speaker pro 
tempore (5) responded that the measure was in order at that 
time and cited 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 3310, holding that on District 
of Columbia Day a motion is in order to go into Committee of the Whole 
House to consider a private bill reported by the Committee on the 
District of Columbia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Carl R. Chindblom (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consideration on Calendar Wednesday

Sec. 11.10 Private bills are not eligible for consideration on Calendar 
    Wednesday.

     On June 5, 1940,(6) during consideration of Calendar 
Wednesday business, Mr. John Lesinski, of Michigan, called up a bill 
(H.R. 9766) to authorize the deportation of an individual. The Chair 
ruled:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 86 Cong. Rec. 7629, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (7) . . . There is no question about 
    bills that may and may not be called up on Calendar Wednesday. The 
    rules specifically provide that on a call of committees under this 
    rule bills may be called up from either the House or the Union 
    Calendars except bills which are privileged under the 
    rules.(8) This bill which the gentleman from Michigan 
    has called up is on the Private Calendar, and in the opinion of the 
    Chair, under the rules, it is not eligible for consideration on 
    Calendar Wednesday.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
 8. See Rule XXIV clause 7, House Rules and Manual Sec. 897 (1981).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Preempting Time for Call of Calendar

Sec. 11.11 By a unanimous-consent agreement the House may provide for 
    the taking up of certain business during the time for the call of 
    the Private Calendar.

    On Mar. 4, 1958,(9) the House commemorated the 53d 
anniversary of the inauguration of President Theodore Roosevelt during 
the time for the call of the Private Calendar, having previously agreed 
to do so by unanimous consent.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 104 Cong. Rec. 3388, 85th Cong. 2d Sess.
10. See also the unanimous-consent request to commemorate Pan American 
        Day before the call of the Private Calendar. 104 Cong. Rec. 
        6436, 6437, 85th Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 15, 1958.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Precedence of Conference Report

Sec. 11.12 The Speaker has recognized a Member to call up a conference 
    report before directing the call of the Private Calendar on the 
    first Tuesday of the month.

[[Page 4492]]

    On Aug. 3, 1965,(11) Mr. Emanuel Celler, of New York, 
before the call of the Private Calendar on a Private Calendar day, was 
recognized to call up the conference report on the bill (S. 1564) to 
enforce the 15th amendment to the U.S. Constitution and asked unanimous 
consent that the statement of the managers on the part of the House be 
read in lieu of the report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 111 Cong. Rec. 19187, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There was no objection.

Private Calendar Bills as Unfinished Business

Sec. 11.13 When the House adjourns before completing action upon an 
    omnibus private bill such bill goes over as unfinished business 
    until that class of business is again in order under the rule.

    On Mar. 17, 1936,(12) during consideration of an omnibus 
bill, Mr. John M. Costello, of California, moved that the House 
adjourn. Mr. Fred Biermann, of Iowa, inquired as to the status of the 
bill upon adjournment. The Speaker pro tempore (13) 
indicated that the bill would be the unfinished business of the House 
at the next call of the Private Calendar when that class of business 
was again in order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 80 Cong. Rec. 3901, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
13. Edward T. Taylor (Colo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------



 
                               CHAPTER 22
 
                               Calendars
 
                   C. PRIVATE CALENDAR; PRIVATE BILLS
 
Sec. 12. Objections; Disposition

    When a bill is called on the Private Calendar two methods are 
available to prevent its consideration. The bill can be passed over or 
recommitted by unanimous consent,(14) or if two objections 
are heard the measure is automatically recommitted to the committee 
which reported it.(15) To this latter purpose the leadership 
of each party appoints official objectors in each Congress to screen 
measures on the calendar.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. See Sec. Sec. 12.4-12.7, infra.
15. Rule XXIV clause 6, House Rules and Manual Sec. 893 (1981).
16. See Sec. Sec. 12.2, 12.3, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The House has used the unanimous-consent request procedure to 
restore measures to the calendar or to rescind actions previously 
taken.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. See Sec. Sec. 12.14-12.17, 
        infra.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Objections Based on Seven-day Requirement

Sec. 12.1 In taking up the Private Calendar, the official objec

[[Page 4493]]

    tors may limit consideration to measures that have been on the 
    calendar for at least seven days before being called.

    On Mar. 2, 1965,(18) Mr. Edward P. Boland, of 
Massachusetts, announced the policy of the official objectors, both 
minority and majority, regarding the Private Calendar. Mr. Boland said:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 111 Cong. Rec. 3914, 3915, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

         . . . [T]he members of the majority and minority Private 
    Calendar objectors committees have today agreed that during the 
    89th Congress they will consider only those bills which have been 
    on the Private Calendar for a period of 7 calendar days, excluding 
    the day the bills are reported and the day the Private Calendar is 
    called. . . .
        This policy will be strictly observed except during the closing 
    days of each session when House rules are suspended.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. See also 115 Cong. Rec. 6656, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 18, 1969; 
        and 103 Cong. Rec. 2249, 2250, 85th Cong. 1st Sess., Feb. 19, 
        1957.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Appointment of Official Objectors

Sec. 12.2 Appointments of official objectors for the Private Calendar 
    were announced by the Majority and Minority Leaders.

    On Feb. 19, 1945,(20) Majority Leader John W. McCormack, 
of Massachusetts, announced the appointment for the Private Calendar of 
the objectors' committee on the Democratic side, consisting of three 
members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 91 Cong. Rec. 1255, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Minority Leader Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of Massachusetts, announced 
the establishment of two objectors' on the Republican side for the 
Private Calendar.

Replacement of Objector

Sec. 12.3 An objector on the Private Calendar having been appointed to 
    a subcommittee of the Committee on the Judiciary, a replacement was 
    designated by the Minority Leader.

    On Feb. 10, 1965,(1) Minority Leader Gerald R. Ford, of 
Michigan, made the following announcement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 111 Cong. Rec. 2468, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Hutchinson] is a 
    member of the subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee which handles 
    private claims, and that seems to be incompatible with his service 
    on the Private Calendar objectors' committee.
        At his request he is being relieved of his assignment on the 
    Private Cal

[[Page 4494]]

    endar objectors' committee, and I have designated the gentleman 
    from California [Mr. Talcott] to take his place.

Passing Over Omnibus Bills

Sec. 12.4 An omnibus private bill is normally passed over by the Clerk 
    when the Private Calendar is called on the first Tuesday of the 
    month, but the House sometimes prescribes, by special order, that 
    such omnibus bills shall be passed over.

    On June 27, 1968,(2) Mr. Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, asked 
unanimous consent that the [omnibus private] bill H.R. 16187 be passed 
over and not considered on the calling of the Private Calendar on July 
2, 1968.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 114 Cong. Rec. 19106, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There was no objection.

Sec. 12.5 The House agreed by unanimous consent that, on the call of 
    the Private Calendar on the following day, an omnibus bill thereon 
    be passed over.

     On May 20, 1968,(3) Mr. Robert T. Ashmore, of South 
Carolina, asked unanimous consent that the omnibus bill (H.R. 16187) be 
passed over for consideration on the following day, the third Tuesday 
of the month.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 114 Cong. Rec. 13881, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There was no objection.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. For an identical procedure, see also 114 Cong. Rec. 20998, 90th 
        Cong. 2d Sess., July 12, 1968; and 114 Cong. Rec. 17064, 90th 
        Cong. 2d Sess., June 13, 1968.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Passing Over Without Prejudice

Sec. 12.6 The House often grants unanimous-consent requests that bills 
    on the Private Calendar be passed over without prejudice.

    On Mar. 18, 1947,(5) during the call of the Private 
Calendar the House granted unanimous consent that numerous bills be 
passed over without prejudice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 93 Cong. Rec. 2206-08, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Recommittal by Unanimous Consent

Sec. 12.7 By unanimous consent, a bill was stricken from the Private 
    Calendar and recommitted to the Committee on the Judiciary.

    On Nov. 19, 1963,(6) Mr. Frank L. Chelf, of Kentucky, 
asked unanimous consent that the bill, H.R. 1277, be removed from the

[[Page 4495]]

 Private Calendar and recommitted to the Committee on the Judiciary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 109 Cong. Rec. 22256, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There was no objection.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. See also 109 Cong. Rec. 24796, 88th Cong. 1st Sess., Dec. 17, 1963.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reservation of Objection

Sec. 12.8 The rule providing for the call of the Private Calendar 
    prohibits the Speaker from entertaining a reservation of objection, 
    either to the consideration of a bill thereon or to a unanimous-
    consent request that the bill be passed over without prejudice.

     On Nov. 4, 1969,(8) the Clerk called House Resolution 
533, to refer a bill (H.R. 3722) for the relief of John S. Attinello to 
the Court of Claims.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 115 Cong. Rec. 32889, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Clarence J. Brown, of Ohio, asked unanimous consent that this 
resolution be passed over without prejudice. Mr. William L. Hungate, of 
Missouri, reserved the right to object, but the Chair ruled that he 
could not do so. The following exchange ensued:

        Mr. Hungate: Mr. Speaker, may I be heard on a point of order?
        Mr. Speaker, I would raise the point of order that a 
    reservation of objection to the unanimous-consent request would 
    lie. This is not a reservation of objection to the bill. This is a 
    reservation of objection to the unanimous-consent request to pass 
    the bill over.
        The Speaker: (9) The Chair calls the attention of 
    the gentleman from Missouri to the rules of the House, clause 6, 
    rule XXIV, which can be found on the inside page of the Private 
    Calendar for today, in connection with the call of the Private 
    Calendar that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            No reservation of objection shall be entertained by the 
        Speaker.

        Mr. Hungate: Mr. Speaker, may I be heard on that paragraph?
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Ohio has asked that the 
    resolution be passed over without prejudice and in accordance with 
    the specific rule applying to the Private Calendar, no reservation 
    of objection shall be entertained by the Speaker.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. The rule cited by Speaker McCormack was as follows: ``. . . Should 
        objection be made by two or more Members to the consideration 
        of any bill or resolution other than an omnibus bill, it shall 
        be recommitted to the committee which reported the bill or 
        resolution and no reservation of objection shall be entertained 
        by the Speaker. . . .'' Rule XXIV clause 6, House Rules and 
        Manual Sec. 893 (1981).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 12.9 Reservations of objections are not in order during the call 
    of the Private Calendar.

    On Apr. 21, 1964,(11) the Clerk called on the Private 
Calendar the

[[Page 4496]]

bill (H.R. 2706) for the relief of Dr. and Mrs. Abel Gorfain. Mr. H. R. 
Gross, of Iowa, asked unanimous consent that this bill be passed over 
without prejudice. Mr. Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, reserved the right to 
object in order to propound a unanimous-consent request with reference 
to the calling of the Private Calendar.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 110 Cong. Rec. 8524, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Speaker (12) responded, ``The Chair will state that 
the gentleman cannot reserve the right to object on the Private 
Calendar.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Recognition for Statement

Sec. 12.10 In the consideration of the Private Calendar, the Chair does 
    not recognize Members for requests to make statements.

    On May 5, 1936,(13) the Clerk called on the Private 
Calendar the bill (H.R. 9002) for the relief of Captain James W. Darr. 
Two Members objected to the consideration of the bill and it was 
recommitted to the Committee on Military Affairs. Mr. Theodore 
Christianson, of Minnesota, then interjected:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 80 Cong. Rec. 6691, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Christianson: Mr. Speaker, will not the gentlemen withhold 
    their objection for a moment? Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
    to make a statement regarding this bill.
        The Speaker: (14) The Chair cannot recognize the 
    gentleman for that purpose under the express provisions of the 
    rule. Otherwise the Chair would be glad to hear the gentleman.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Joseph W. Byrns (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Restoring Passed-over Bill to Calendar

Sec. 12.11 The Speaker has declined to recognize a Member to request 
    unanimous consent to make an omnibus private bill eligible for 
    consideration when the House had previously agreed by unanimous 
    consent that it should be passed over.

    On July 15, 1968,(15) Mr. William L. Hungate, of 
Missouri, asked unanimous consent that the omnibus private bill H.R. 
16187, be placed on the Private Calendar for July 16. The bill had been 
passed over three times by unanimous consent. The Speaker 
(16) ruled that such a request could not be entertained at 
that time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 114 Cong. Rec. 21326, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
16. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Restoration of Stricken Bill

Sec. 12.12 The Speaker has declined to recognize Members for unanimous-
    consent re

[[Page 4497]]

    quests that bills stricken from the Private Calendar be restored 
    thereto until they have consulted with the official objectors.

    On Apr. 19, 1948,(17) Mr. Thomas J. Lane, of 
Massachusetts, asked unanimous consent that the bill H.R. 403, be 
restored to the Private Calendar:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 94 Cong. Rec. 4573, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (18) Has the gentleman consulted the 
    objectors?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Joseph W. Martin, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Lane: No; I have not.
        The Speaker: The Chair cannot entertain the gentleman's request 
    until he has done so.

Sec. 12.13 A private bill objected to and stricken from the Private 
    Calendar has been restored to such calendar by unanimous consent.

    On Jan. 18, 1944,(19) Mr. Noah M. Mason, of Illinois, 
asked unanimous consent that the bill (H.R. 2456) for the relief of 
Moses Tennenbaum be reinstated on the Private Calendar.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 90 Cong. Rec. 331, 78th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There was no objection.

Restoring Recommitted Bill

Sec. 12.14 A private bill objected to and recommitted has been restored 
    to the Private Calendar by unanimous consent.

    On June 15, 1944,(1) Mr. John Jennings, Jr., of 
Tennessee, asked unanimous consent that a recommitted bill (H.R. 2354) 
for the relief of Mrs. Phoebe Sherman be restored to the Private 
Calendar.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 90 Cong. Rec. 5972, 78th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There was no objection.

Sec. 12.15 A bill which has been objected to by two Members, stricken 
    from the Private Calendar and recommitted to the Committee on the 
    Judiciary, was by unanimous consent restored to the Private 
    Calendar.

    On July 18, 1962,(2) Mr. John B. Anderson, of Illinois, 
asked unanimous consent that, notwithstanding the action taken by the 
House on a bill on the previous day [the bill had been objected to and 
recommitted to the Committee on the Judiciary], the bill (S. 2147) be 
restored to the Private Calendar.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 108 Cong. Rec. 13997, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There was no objection.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. For a similar action see 108 Cong. Rec. 87th Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 
        7, 1962.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4498]]

Rescinding Reference to Court of Claims

Sec. 12.16 By resolution, the House has rescinded a previously adopted 
    resolution whereby a private bill had been referred to the Court of 
    Claims for a report, and the Court of Claims was directed to return 
    the bill.

    On Apr. 30, 1957,(4) Mr. Thomas J. Lane, of 
Massachusetts, offered a resolution (H. Res. 241) and asked unanimous 
consent for its immediate consideration:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 103 Cong. Rec. 6159, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That the adoption by the House of Representatives of 
    House Resolution 174, 85th Congress, is hereby rescinded. The 
    United States Court of Claims is hereby directed to return to the 
    House of Representatives the bill (H.R. 2648) entitled ``A bill for 
    the relief of the MacArthur Mining Co., Inc., in receivership,'' 
    together with all accompanying papers, referred to said court by 
    said House Resolution 174.

    The resolution was agreed to.

Rescinding Passage of Private Bill

Sec. 12.17 Both Houses adopted a concurrent resolution rescinding the 
    action of each in connection with the passage of a private bill and 
    providing that the said bill be postponed indefinitely.

    On Feb. 7, 1952,(5) Mr. Francis E. Walter, of 
Pennsylvania, asked unanimous consent for the immediate consideration 
of Senate Concurrent Resolution 50, rescinding the action on and 
indefinitely postponing Senate bill 1236 for the relief of Kim Song 
Nore:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 98 Cong. Rec. 934, 82d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 
    concurring), That the action of the two Houses in connection with 
    the passage of the bill (S. 1236) for the relief of Kim Song Nore 
    be rescinded, and that the said bill be postponed indefinitely.

    There was no objection to the unanimous-consent request, and the 
Senate concurrent resolution was agreed to.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. This action was necessary because the individual named in the bill 
        died. .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Transferring Private Bill to Union Calendar

Sec. 12.18 The Chair refused to submit to the House a unanimous-consent 
    request that a private bill be transferred to the Union Calendar.

    On July 31, 1939,(7) Mr. Walter G. Andrews, of New York, 
asked

[[Page 4499]]

unanimous consent that the bill (H.R. 4723) reported from the Committee 
on Military Affairs to correct the military record of Oberlin M. Carter 
be transferred from the Private to the Union Calendar. The Speaker 
(8) stated that such transfer would be contrary to the 
precedents and refused to recognize Mr. Andrews for that purpose.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 84 Cong. Rec. 10563, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
 8. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------



                               CHAPTER 22
 
                               Calendars
 
                   C. PRIVATE CALENDAR; PRIVATE BILLS
 
Sec. 13. Consideration, Debate, and Amendment

    Private bills are considered in the House as in the Committee of 
the Whole,(9) and amendments are considered under the five-
minute rule.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Rule XXIV clause 6, House Rules and Manual Sec. 893 (1981).
10. See Sec. 13.2, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Provision for the consideration of omnibus bills (i.e., 
consolidation into one bill of numerous private bills of the same 
class) was added to the rules of the House in 1935.(11) The 
validity of this rule has been sustained, both as an internal House 
procedure and under principles of comity with the Senate. (See 
Sec. 13.1, infra.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. H. Res. 172, 79 Cong. Rec. 4480-89, 4538, 74th Cong. 1st Sess., 
        Mar. 26, 27, 1935.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consideration and Validity of Omnibus Bills

Sec. 13.1 The House may by rule provide for the consolidation into an 
    omnibus bill of private bills and direct the manner in which such 
    omnibus bills shall be considered, including the consolidation 
    therein of Senate bills passed by the Senate and referred to the 
    House.

    On July 16, 1935,(12) the Clerk called on the Private 
Calendar the bill (H.R. 8060) for the relief of sundry claimants [an 
omnibus bill].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 79 Cong. Rec. 11259, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Thomas L. Blanton, of Texas, raised the point of order that 
Rule XXIV clause 6, authorizing omnibus bills, was inoperative and did 
not in fact authorize such omnibus bills.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Mr. Blanton gave advance notice of his point of order four days 
        previously along with a summary of his arguments against the 
        application of Rule XXIV clause 6, ``. . . so that,'' he said, 
        ``the Speaker in the meantime may examine the authorities which 
        may be presented by myself or by the Parliamentarian.'' 79 
        Cong. Rec. 11113, 11114, 74th Cong. 1st Sess., July 12, 1935.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Blanton argued that the omnibus bill provision in Rule

[[Page 4500]]

XXIV clause 6, adopted four months earlier,(14) contradicted 
Rule XX clause 1 which provides ``Any amendment of the Senate to any 
House bill shall be subject to the point of order that it shall first 
be considered in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the 
Union, if, originating in the House, it would be subject to that 
point.'' Mr. Blanton said, ``. . . After we pass one of these omnibus 
bills, and it is unscrambled by resolving all of the House bills passed 
on it, into their original forms, and we send them to the Senate and 
the Senate should amend them by placing an entirely new amendment on a 
House bill carrying $100,000,000, under Rule XX, we would have to 
consider it in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the 
Union, but under this new rule--clause 6 of Rule XXIV--we could 
consider it in the House in direct violation of Rule XX, which has 
neither been amended nor repealed.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. H. Res. 172, 79 Cong. Rec. 4480-89, 4538, 74th Cong. 1st Sess., 
        Mar. 26, 27, 1935.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Blanton then cited Rule XXI clause 1 providing:

        Bills and joint resolutions on their passage shall be read the 
    first time by title and the second time in full, when, if the 
    previous question is ordered, the Speaker shall state the question 
    to be, Shall the bill be engrossed and read a third time? and, if 
    decided in the affirmative, it shall be read the third time by 
    title . . . and the question shall then be put upon its passage.

    Mr. Blanton said:

        . . . [I]ts provisions relating to the engrossment of a House 
    bill could not be followed out with regard to one of these omnibus 
    bills, because you do not engross a bill until just before its 
    final passage, and under clause 6 of rule XXIV these omnibus bills 
    may embrace a number of House bills, and also a number of Senate 
    bills, which have already been engrossed by the Senate, and under 
    rule XXI you could not properly engross such a bill.

    Mr. Blanton next cited Rule XXIII clause 3 providing:

        All motions or propositions involving a tax or charge upon the 
    people, all proceedings touching appropriations of money, or bills 
    making appropriations of money or property, or requiring such 
    appropriation to be made, or authorizing payments out of 
    appropriations already made, or releasing any liability to the 
    United States for money or property, or referring any claim to the 
    Court of Claims, shall be first considered in a Committee of the 
    Whole, and a point of order under this rule shall be good at any 
    time before the consideration of a bill has commenced.

    Mr. Blanton continued:

        That is a standing rule of this House. It has been a rule of 
    this House for many years. It has never been amended. It has never 
    been repealed. It has never been changed by one

[[Page 4501]]

    word, I submit to the Speaker. Yet, if you proceed under it, you 
    certainly could not proceed under this new clause 6 of rule XXIV.
        We all know that in the Committee of the Whole there is 
    generous general debate allowed, while under clause 6 of Rule XXIV 
    there is no general debate and only a few minutes allowed for 
    amendments.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 79 Cong. Rec. 11259, 11260, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Blanton next cited Rule XXIII clause 5 providing:

        When general debate is closed by order of the House, any Member 
    shall be allowed 5 minutes to explain any amendment he may offer, 
    after which the Member who shall first obtain the floor shall be 
    allowed to speak 5 minutes in opposition to it, and there shall be 
    no further debate thereon, but the same privilege of debate shall 
    be allowed in favor of and against any amendment that may be 
    offered to an amendment; and neither an amendment nor an amendment 
    to an amendment shall be withdrawn by the mover thereof unless by 
    the unanimous consent of the committee.

    Mr. Blanton said:

        This is a standing rule of the House and has been a rule of the 
    House for many years. It has not been changed, it has not been 
    repealed, it has not been amended; and it is in conflict with this 
    so-called ``change of one rule, clause 6 of rule XXIV.'' The rights 
    which it safeguards to Members are curtailed and to a large extent 
    wiped out by this new clause 6 of rule XXIV. Under which are we to 
    operate?
        I want to call attention to just a few of the Senate rules 
    relative to Senate bills. This so-called ``change of clause 6 of 
    rule XXIV'', just one clause of one rule, not only affects House 
    bills, Mr. Speaker, but it materially affects Senate bills that are 
    properly passed by the Senate of the United States and messaged 
    over to the House and properly referred to committees by the 
    Speaker under the rules of this House, and the comity that exists 
    between the House and the Senate, which comity has existed ever 
    since the beginning of the Congress. . . .(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Id. at pp. 11260, 11261.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        [The omnibus bill] comes back into the House with a new number 
    on the House Private Calendar, with the Senate identity lost and 
    the Senate number lost, so far as the bill number is concerned. . . 
    .
        Mr. Speaker, you cannot pass legislation in that way, that 
    takes money out of the Public Treasury. You cannot pass legislation 
    under the rules of the House that have been in vogue for 140 years, 
    since Congress was first created, by a simple House resolution. 
    That is against the Senate rules and against the rules of the 
    House. The law provides that when a bill takes money out of the 
    Public Treasury it must go into the Committee of the Whole House, 
    whether it is a House bill or a Senate bill. If it is a House bill, 
    if it takes money out of the Public Treasury, it must be debated in 
    the Committee of the Whole. If it is a Senate bill and takes money 
    out of the Public Treasury, it must be debated in Committee of the 
    Whole. That is the protection placed by Congress around the 
    taxpayers' money. . . .

[[Page 4502]]

        I do not know what the Speaker's ruling is . . . if the 
    Comptroller General rules against any of these bills after they are 
    passed, or if any taxpayer of the United States, and there will be 
    some, ever brings such a bill before the Supreme Court of the 
    United States for revision and contests the legality of its 
    passage, the legality of taking the people's money out of the 
    Treasury in this haphazard way by a simple House resolution, then 
    there will be a chance for the Supreme Court to render a proper 
    decision upon it.
        I submit the matter to the Speaker.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Id. at pp. 11262, 11263.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Chair responded:

        The Speaker: (18) . . . The gentleman from Texas, in 
    his argument today, has contended that this rule conflicts with a 
    number of rules to which he has referred. Without passing upon the 
    question of whether or not there is a conflict, the Chair will 
    state that if there is a conflict the rule last adopted would 
    control. The Chair assumes that if this rule should be found to 
    conflict with previous rules, that the House intended, at least by 
    implication, to repeal that portion of the previous rule with which 
    it is in conflict. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Joseph W. Byrns (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman contends that the House may not, in the exercise 
    of the power conferred upon it by the Constitution ``to determine 
    the rules of its proceedings,'' (19) adopt a rule which 
    has the effect of permitting an omnibus bill to contain one or more 
    separate Senate bills as well as sundry House bills.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. U.S. Const. art. I, Sec. 5, para. 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair, in passing upon points of order, is limited by the 
    terms of the rule which is applicable to the determination of the 
    point of order. . . . Although it is not necessary for the 
    determination of the point of order for the Chair to pass upon the 
    question as to whether the House had the power to make such a rule, 
    the Chair will refer but briefly to two decisions heretofore made--
    one by an eminent Speaker and one by the Supreme Court of the 
    United States.
        Mr. Speaker Blaine, in the Forty-third Congress, in passing 
    upon a question involving the right of the House to formulate 
    rules, said:

            He (the Chair) has several times ruled that the right of 
        each House to determine what shall be its rules is an organic 
        right expressly given by the Constitution of the United States. 
        . . . The House is incapable, by any form of rules, of 
        divesting itself of its inherent constitutional power to 
        exercise its function to determine its own rules.

        The Supreme Court, speaking through Mr. Justice Brewer in U.S. 
    v. Ballin (144 U.S. 1), said:

            Neither do the advantages or disadvantages, the wisdom or 
        folly, of . . . a rule present any matters for judicial 
        consideration. With the courts the question is only one of 
        power. The Constitution empowers each House to determine its 
        rules of proceedings. It may not by its rules ignore 
        constitutional restraints or violate fundamental rights, and 
        there should be a reasonable relation between the mode or 
        method of proceeding established by the rule and the result 
        which is sought to be attained. But within these limitations 
        all matters of method are open to the determination of the 
        House, and it is no impeachment of the rule to say that some 
        other way would be better, more accurate, or even more just. . 
        . .

[[Page 4503]]

        There has been some concern expressed as to whether it is 
    possible to identify the Senate bills incorporated in an omnibus 
    House bill. This concern may be removed by merely glancing at an 
    omnibus bill. We find there that the Senate bills carry their own 
    number and title in a paragraph set off by itself. Inasmuch as the 
    omnibus bill carries each individual bill included therein by its 
    number and title, it does not seem as though too great a difficulty 
    would be encountered for the clerks after the passage of the 
    omnibus bill to resolve the portions thereof into their original 
    form. That is merely a clerical undertaking which does not present 
    any undue difficulty. The Chair would think that after the passage 
    of an omnibus bill the Journal would show the specific action on 
    each individual bill which had been embodied in it. A message would 
    be sent to the Senate stating that the House had passed such and 
    such a bill, if it be a House bill, and requesting the concurrence 
    of the Senate therein. If it be a Senate bill, the message would 
    merely state that the House had passed it with the attestation of 
    the Clerk of the House, which would not be questioned by the 
    Senate.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Id. at pp. 11264, 11265.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Debate on Amendments Under Five-minute Rule

Sec. 13.2 Amendments to measures on the Private Calendar are debatable 
    under the five-minute rule. Debate is limited to five minutes in 
    favor of and five minutes in opposition to an amendment.

    On Dec. 14, 1967,(1) during consideration of a committee 
amendment to a resolution (H. Res. 981) expressing the disapproval of 
the House with respect to the granting of permanent residence in the 
United States to certain aliens, Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa, rose in 
opposition to the amendment and was granted five minutes to express his 
opposition. At the end of that five minutes Mr. Gross asked permission 
to proceed an additional two minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 113 Cong. Rec. 36535-37, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Speaker (2) ruled that an extension of time was not 
in order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Michael A. Feighan, of Ohio, sought recognition to speak in 
favor of the same amendment. The Chair ruled that a member of the 
committee reporting the resolution was entitled to recognition. Mr. 
Feighan proceeded for five minutes to debate the committee amendment.

Requests to Address the House

Sec. 13.3 In considering bills on the Private Calendar the Chair 
    refuses to recognize Members for unanimous-consent requests to 
    address the House.

    On May 7, 1935,(3) at the call on the Private Calendar 
of the bill (S.

[[Page 4504]]

41) for relief of the Germania Catering Company, Inc., the Speaker pro 
tempore (4) asked whether there was objection to the 
consideration of the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 79 Cong. Rec. 7100, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
 4. John J. O'Connor (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Charles V. Truax, of Ohio, asked unanimous consent to proceed 
for five minutes. The Chair responded that he would not be recognized 
for that purpose.

Extending Time for Debate

Sec. 13.4 In the consideration of omnibus private bills under the five-
    minute rule the Chair does not recognize Members for the purpose of 
    extending time for debate in support of an amendment.

     On Apr. 22, 1936,(5) during consideration of the 
omnibus bill (S. 267) for the relief of certain officers and employees 
of the foreign service, Mr. Sol Bloom, of New York, offered an 
amendment. After speaking five minutes in support of his amendment Mr. 
Bloom asked unanimous consent to proceed for five additional minutes. 
The Chair responded:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 80 Cong. Rec. 5900, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (6) The Chair cannot recognize the 
    gentleman for that purpose under the rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Joseph W. Byrns (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 13.5 During the consideration of an omnibus private bill the Chair 
    has refused to recognize Members for unanimous-consent requests to 
    extend the time for debate in opposition to an amendment.

    On July 20, 1937,(7) during consideration of the omnibus 
private bill (H.R. 6336) for the relief of sundry claimants, Mr. 
Clarence E. Hancock, of New York, offered an amendment to strike out 
all of title I (H.R. 886) of the omnibus bill. After speaking five 
minutes in opposition to the amendment, Mr. Alfred F. Beiter, of New 
York, asked unanimous consent to proceed for one additional minute in 
order to answer a question. The Chair (8) ruled that under 
the rule covering the consideration of these bills, five minutes on 
each side is the limit for debate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 81 Cong. Rec. 7293-95, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
 8. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hour Rule for Debate of Bill

Sec. 13.6 When consideration of a private bill in the House is granted 
    by unanimous consent the Member making the request is recognized 
    for one hour.

    On Mar. 12, 1963,(9) Mr. Emanuel Celler, of New York, 
asked

[[Page 4505]]

 unanimous consent for the immediate consideration in the House of the 
bill (H.R. 4374) to proclaim Sir Winston Churchill an honorary citizen 
of the United States. Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa, raised a parliamentary 
inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 109 Cong. Rec. 3993, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, under what circumstances will this 
    resolution be considered? Will there be any time for discussion of 
    the resolution, if unanimous consent is given?
        The Speaker: (10) In response to the parliamentary 
    inquiry of the gentleman from Iowa, if consent is granted for the 
    present consideration of the bill, the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
    Celler] will be recognized for 1 hour and the gentleman from New 
    York may yield to such Members as he desires to yield to before 
    moving the previous question.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nongermane Amendments

Sec. 13.7 A committee amendment to a private bill adding language that 
    is general or public in character is not germane.

    On June 20, 1950,(11) the House considered the private 
bill (S. 2309) granting permanent residence to certain aliens. As 
reported to the floor the bill contained a committee amendment 
authorizing 3,200 passport visas in any fiscal year to be issued to 
eligible foreign specialists as nonimmigrants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 96 Cong. Rec. 8914, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Wesley A. D'Ewart, of Montana, raised the point of order 
against the amendment on the grounds that it was a general amendment to 
a private bill and therefore not germane. The Speaker (12) 
sustained the point of order citing section 3292 of 4 Hinds' 
Precedents:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        It is not in order to amend a private bill by adding provisions 
    general or public in character.

Sec. 13.8 It is not in order to amend a private bill with a proposition 
    that is in the nature of general legislation.

    On June 13, 1940,(13) Mr. Warren G. Magnuson, of 
Washington, offered an amendment to the pending private bill ordering 
the Secretary of Labor to take into custody and deport Harry Bridges. 
The amendment was as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 86 Cong. Rec. 8213, 8214, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . Strike out all after enacting clause and insert ``That 
    any alien who, at any time after entering the United States, is 
    found to have been at the time of entry, or to have become 
    thereafter, a member of the Nazi, Fascist, or Communist Party, or 
    who advises, advocates, or teaches the doctrines of nazi-ism, 
    fascism, or communism, or

[[Page 4506]]

    who is a member of, or affiliated with, any organization, 
    association, society, or group, that advises, advocates, or teaches 
    the doctrines of nazi-ism, fascism, or communism, shall, upon the 
    warrant of the Secretary of Labor, be taken into custody and 
    deported in the manner provided in the Immigration Act of February 
    5, 1917.''

    Mr. John Lesinski, of Michigan, raised the point of order that this 
amendment was general legislation and not germane to a private bill. 
The Chair sustained the point of order.

Withdrawal of Committee Amendment

Sec. 13.9 During the consideration of a bill on the Private Calendar, a 
    Member obtained unanimous consent to vacate and withdraw a 
    committee amendment which had been agreed to.

    On May 18, 1965,(14) the private bill (H.R. 2351) for 
the relief of Teresita Centeno Valdez was read along with committee 
amendments, which were agreed to. Mr. Frank L. Chelf, of Kentucky, 
asked unanimous consent to withdraw the committee amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 111 Cong. Rec. 10874, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There was no objection.

Motion to Strike Enacting Clause

Sec. 13.10 A motion to strike out the enacting clause is in order 
    during the consideration of an omnibus private bill.

    On May 18, 1937,(15) during consideration of the omnibus 
private bill (H.R. 5897) for the relief of sundry aliens, Mr. Joe 
Starnes, of Alabama, made a motion to strike out the enacting clause.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 81 Cong. Rec. 4727, 4728, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. John J. O'Connor, of New York, made a point of order against 
the motion:

        Mr. O'Connor of New York: Mr. Speaker, under the Private 
    Calendar rule, the only motion in order during the consideration of 
    an omnibus bill is a motion, as each bill is called, either to 
    strike out the paragraph or to reduce the amount or to add 
    limitations.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. ``Omnibus bills shall be read for amendment by paragraph, and no 
        amendment shall be in order except to strike out or to reduce 
        amounts of money stated or to provide limitations. . . .'' Rule 
        XXIV clause 6, para. 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        May I say further, Mr. Speaker, that in considering this rule 
    providing for consideration of the Private Calendar, either the 
    individual bills or the omnibus bills, it was deliberately provided 
    that there would be a limitation on

[[Page 4507]]

    motions. It was discussed in the [Rules] committee that such bills 
    would not be handled as other bills, with a motion to strike out 
    the enacting clause, which would go to the entire omnibus bill, 
    which in this instance includes 15 individual bills. Such a motion 
    does not come within the intent of the rule with respect to the 
    handling of omnibus bills, because if you strike out the enacting 
    clause of the omnibus bill, by one stroke you defeat the 
    consideration of 15 individual bills, and it was intended that each 
    of the 15 bills would be considered in the House as in Committee of 
    the Whole, and that only those three motions mentioned would lie, 
    and only against the individual paragraphs.
        There is no question in the mind of myself, who has sometimes 
    been called the author of the rule for the consideration of the 
    Private Calendar, which was brought out from the Rules Committee, 
    as to the intent with reference to this rule.
        The Speaker: (17) . . . [Rule XXIV, clause 6, para. 
    3] imposes restrictions only on the kind of amendments that may be 
    offered during the consideration of an omnibus bill. The Chair has 
    been unable to find any provision of the rule which would prohibit 
    the offering of any other motion provided in the general rules of 
    the House. Certainly the Private Calendar rule does not by specific 
    language deprive a Member of the right to offer a motion to strike 
    out the enacting clause as provided in clause 7, rule XXIII.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Chair cited a similar ruling by the late Speaker Byrns on Mar. 
17, 1936. At that time he held:

        A motion to strike out the enacting clause is in order during 
    the consideration of omnibus private bills and is debatable under 
    the 5-minute 
    rule. . . .
        And this is the portion of the rule

            Mr. Speaker Byrns read:
            A motion to strike out the enacting words of a bill shall 
        have precedence of a motion to amend; and if carried, shall be 
        equivalent to its rejection. . . .

        Based upon that direct decision upon the question and the 
    reasons heretofore stated, the Chair feels impelled to overrule the 
    point of order.

Sec. 13.11 A motion to strike out the enacting clause of an omnibus 
    private bill takes precedence over an amendment to strike out a 
    title of the bill, and, if adopted, applies to the entire bill.

    On May 16, 1939,(18) during the consideration of an 
omnibus private bill (H.R. 6182) for the relief of sundry aliens, Mr. 
Thomas A. Jenkins, of Ohio, offered an amendment to strike out all of 
title I (H.R. 658) of the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 84 Cong. Rec. 5614-18, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After debate but before a vote on that amendment, Mr. A. Leonard 
Allen, of Louisiana, offered a preferential motion that the enacting 
clause be striken out. After debate on the preferential motion Mr. 
Jenkins raised a parliamentary inquiry:

[[Page 4508]]

        Mr. Jenkins of Ohio: I notice this bill has four titles. Up to 
    this time we have only been dealing with one title, but I take it 
    the motion to strike out the enacting clause will strike out the 
    enacting clause for the entire bill.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (19) That is true.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Fritz G. Lanham (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Jenkins of Ohio: As I understand it, that would not be in 
    opposition to my amendment, except that it would strike this whole 
    bill out, and then it could go back to the Committee on 
    Immigration, if necessary.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The adoption of the pending 
    preferential motion would strike out the enacting clause with 
    reference to the omnibus bill and the various individual bills 
    contained therein.
        Mr. [Samuel] Dickstein [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Dickstein: If the motion of the gentleman from Ohio is 
    agreed to, then that kills this bill?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. 
    Allen] has offered a preferential motion to strike out the enacting 
    clause. If that motion is adopted, then there would be no further 
    consideration of the bill. It would apply to all titles enumerated 
    in the bill.
        Mr. Dickstein. If that motion is not adopted, then what will be 
    the procedure?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: If the gentleman's motion is not 
    adopted, the next procedure would be to vote upon the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Jenkins] to strike out 
    title I of the bill. .

Sec. 13.12 A motion to strike out the enacting clause is in order 
    during the consideration of omnibus private bills and is debatable 
    under the five-minute rule, but a motion to strike out the last 
    word is not in order.

    On Mar. 17, 1936,(20) during consideration of the 
omnibus private bill (H.R. 8524) for the relief of sundry claimants, 
Mr. Thomas L. Blanton, of Texas, moved to strike out the enacting 
clause:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 80 Cong. Rec. 3894, 3895, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        [Mr. [Fred] Biermann (of Iowa)]: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of 
    order against that. I do not believe that motion is allowed under 
    the rule.
        The Speaker: (1) The motion to strike out the 
    enacting clause is not an amendment in the sense contemplated by 
    the rule. The Chair is of the opinion that the motion is in order 
    and the gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 minutes. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Joseph W. Byrns (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Biermann: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry. Under the 
    rule we are working under I find these words:

            Omnibus bills shall be read for amendment by paragraph, and 
        no amendment shall be in order except to strike out or to 
        reduce amounts of money or to provide limitation.

        My inquiry is whether or not it is going to be in order for me 
    to move to strike out the last word?

[[Page 4509]]

        The Speaker: It will not.
        Mr. Biermann: Is the gentleman from Texas out of order?
        The Speaker: He is not. The gentleman from Texas moved to 
    strike out the enacting clause. He did not offer an amendment.

Pro Forma Amendments

Sec. 13.13 Motions to strike out the last word are not in order during 
    the consideration of omnibus private bills.

    On July 20, 1937,(2) during consideration of an 
amendment to title I of the omnibus private bill (H.R. 6336), Mr. Fred 
L. Crawford, of Michigan, moved to strike out the last word. The 
Speaker (3) ruled that under the rule the Chair could not 
entertain that motion. The question at this time was the amendment 
offered to title I of the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 81 Cong. Rec. 7295, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
 3. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 13.14 Pro forma amendments are not in order during the 
    consideration of an omnibus private bill.

    On July 20, 1937,(4) during consideration of an 
amendment offered to title III of an omnibus private bill (H.R. 6336), 
Mr. Walter M. Pierce, of Oregon, moved to strike out the last word. The 
Chair ruled:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 81 Cong. Rec. 7299, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (5) The Chair cannot 
    recognize the gentleman to make that motion. Under the rule for the 
    consideration of omnibus bills on the Private Calendar, the only 
    amendments in order are ``to strike out or reduce amounts of money 
    stated or to provide limitations.'' A pro forma amendment is 
    therefore not in order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. John J. O'Conner (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question is on the motion . . . to strike out the title.

Sec. 13.15 Under the earlier practice, it was in order during the 
    consideration of individual bills (but not omnibus bills) on the 
    Private Calendar to strike out the last word.

     On Apr. 7, 1936,(6) during the call on the Private 
Calendar of the bill (S. 2682) for the relief of Chief Carpenter 
William F. Twitchell, U.S. Navy, Mr. Marion A Zioncheck, of Washington, 
moved to strike out the last word. Mr. Clarence E. Hancock, of New 
York, made the point of order that under the rule amendments of this 
kind cannot be offered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 80 Cong. Rec. 5075, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Chair responded:

        The Speaker: (7) . . . The Chair, after examination 
    of the rule, thinks

[[Page 4510]]

    that the restriction with reference to the offering of amendments 
    applies only to omnibus bills.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Joseph W. Byrns (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 13.16 Under the modern practice, pro forma amendments to bills on 
    the Private Calendar, whether omnibus or individual bills, are not 
    permitted.

    On Feb. 16, 1954,(8) during consideration of the private 
bill (H.R. 7460), Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, moved to strike 
out the last word and asked unanimous consent to revise and extend his 
remarks and to proceed out of order. After passage of the bill, the 
Speaker (9) said, ``The Chair wishes to make a statement in 
order to clarify the rules of procedure during the call of the Private 
Calendar. Inadvertently, the Chair recognized the gentleman from 
Michigan to strike out the last word. Under the rules of the House, of 
course, that may be done on bills on the Consent Calendar, but not on 
the Private Calendar.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 100 Cong. Rec. 1826, 1827, 83d Cong. 2d Sess.
 9. Joseph W. Martin, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On Aug. 30, 1960,(10) during consideration of the 
private bill (S. 3439) authorizing the President to present a gold 
medal to the poet Robert Frost, Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, 
moved to strike out the last word.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 106 Cong. Rec. 18389, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Speaker pro tempore, Wilbur D. Mills, of Arkansas, replied, 
``An amendment to strike out or reduce an amount would be in order, but 
not a pro forma amendment.''
    On Dec. 14, 1967,(11) during consideration of a 
committee amendment to a resolution (H. Res. 981) expressing the 
disapproval of the House to the granting of permanent residence in the 
United States to certain aliens, Mr. Durward G. Hall, of Missouri, 
moved to strike out the requisite number of words. The Speaker 
(12) ruled that the motion was not in order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 113 Cong. Rec. 36537, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
12. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 13.17 An amendment proposing a minimal reduction of the amount of 
    money in an omnibus private bill is a pro forma amendment and 
    therefore not in order.

    On July 20, 1937,(13) Mr. Everett M. Dirksen, of 
Illinois, offered an amendment to an omnibus private bill (H.R. 6336) 
to reduce the amount stated from $5,000 to $4,999.99.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 81 Cong. Rec. 7299, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Chair ruled:

[[Page 4511]]

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (14) The Chair must hold 
    that under the spirit of the rule for the consideration of omnibus 
    private bills, such an amendment, which is in effect a pro forma 
    amendment, is not in order, and in addition thereto, the amendment 
    offered is an amendment to an amendment already adopted, and 
    therefore not in order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. John J. O'Connor (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Striking Part of Omnibus Bill

Sec. 13.18 Where an omnibus private bill contains an individual private 
    bill that has been laid on the table, the Chair upon the 
    presentation of a point of order has ordered the individual bill 
    stricken from the omnibus bill.

    On Apr. 22, 1936,(15) during the call on the Private 
Calendar of the omnibus bill H.R. 852, Mr. John J. Cochran, of 
Missouri, raised the point of order that title IX of such bill (H.R. 
3075) was laid on the table in August of 1935:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 80 Cong. Rec. 5894, 5895, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Cochran: . . . Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that 
    the committee had no right or authority to include this bill in an 
    omnibus bill, because it has already been tabled and was not 
    rereferred to the committee.
        The Speaker: (16) . . . The Chair holds that this 
    bill, having been laid on the table by action of the House, is not 
    a proper bill to be included in the pending omnibus bill. The only 
    way to get it up would be by submitting a unanimous-consent request 
    to take it from the table and consider it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Joseph W. Byrns (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair therefore sustains the point of order.



 
                               CHAPTER 22
 
                               Calendars
 
                   C. PRIVATE CALENDAR; PRIVATE BILLS
 
Sec. 14. Private Bills and House-Senate Relations

Resolving Omnibus Bill Into Individual Bills

Sec. 14.1 Under the Private Calendar rule omnibus bills upon their 
    passage are resolved into the several original bills of which they 
    are composed and are messaged to the Senate as individual bills and 
    not as an omnibus bill.

    On Jan. 27, 1936,(17) Mr. John J. Cochran, of Missouri, 
raised a parliamentary inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 79 Cong. Rec. 1047, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Cochran: In the last session of Congress the House passed 
    an omnibus-claims bill. That bill went to the Senate and one bill I 
    have in mind was passed by the Senate with amendments and is now in 
    conference. I desire to inquire if that conference report will come 
    back to the House on that particular bill or will it come back to 
    the House as a conference report on the omnibus claims bill?

[[Page 4512]]

        The Speaker: (18) The conferees will report on the 
    individual bill which was passed by the two Houses. The gentleman 
    understands that under the Private Calendar rule, after an omnibus 
    bill is passed by the House, it is resolved into the several bills 
    of which it is composed so that each bill contained therein again 
    assumes its original form. The Chair thinks the gentleman will find 
    that there are no omnibus-claims bills in conference but that there 
    may be some individual bills in conference that were at one time 
    incorporated in an omnibus bill. In that case the conferees could 
    only report on the individual bills committed to them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Joseph W. Byrns (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Cochran: Then it will come back here as a conference report 
    on an individual bill and considered under the general rules of the 
    House?
        The Speaker: The gentleman is correct.

Considering Senate Bill by Resolution

Sec. 14.2 Parliamentarian's Note: Where a private Senate bill resulting 
    in the expenditure of public funds (and thus requiring 
    consideration in the Committee of the Whole) is not privileged and 
    cannot be taken from the Speaker's table for direct action by the 
    House, the House may adopt a resolution taking the bill from the 
    table and providing for its consideration.

    On Mar. 14, 1961,(19) the House considered and adopted 
House Resolution 224, called up from the Committee on Rules, providing 
for the taking from the Speaker's table and considering in the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union the bill (S. 
1173) to authorize the appointment of Dwight David Eisenhower to the 
active list of the regular Army.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 107 Cong. Rec. 3911, 3914, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tabling Part of an Omnibus Bill

Sec. 14.3 After passage of an omnibus private bill on the calendar, 
    Senate bills pending on the Speaker's table which are identical or 
    similar to those contained in the omnibus bill may be disposed of 
    in the House by unanimous consent. After disposition of a Senate 
    bill, the similar House bill--a component of the omnibus bill--may 
    be laid on the table by unanimous consent so that two measures 
    involving the same private relief will not be messaged to the 
    Senate.

    On Sept. 17, 1968,(20) Mr. Herbert Tenzer, of New York, 
asked

[[Page 4513]]

 unanimous consent for the immediate consideration of the bill (S. 857) 
for the relief of Puget Sound Plywood, Inc., of Tacoma, Wash. This bill 
was similar to title IX (H.R. 4949) of the omnibus bill (H.R. 16187) 
which the House had just passed.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 114 Cong. Rec. 27184, 27185, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
 1.  Id. at p. 27184.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There was no objection.
    Mr. Tenzer then offered an amendment to the Senate bill reducing 
the amount of the claim provided for in the bill from $44,016.62 to 
$9,593.72, so that the Senate bill as amended would be identical to the 
House bill just passed.
    The amendment was agreed to, the Senate bill was passed, and by 
unanimous consent the proceedings whereby the identical House bill 
(H.R. 4949) was passed were vacated and the House bill laid on the 
table.

Considering Similar Senate and House Bills

Sec. 14.4 After the passage in the House of an omnibus private bill it 
    is in order by unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table 
    and pass a similar Senate bill, in which event the proceedings 
    whereby the House bill passed should be vacated and the bill laid 
    on the table.

    On Apr. 22, 1936,(2) Mr. Clyde Williams, of Missouri, 
asked unanimous consent for the present consideration of the bill (S. 
713) granting jurisdiction to the Court of Claims to hear the case of 
David A. Wright, which was identical to the bill H.R. 2713 in the 
(omnibus) bill (H.R. 8524, title IV) just passed:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 80 Cong. Rec. 5897, 5898, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (3) Is there objection?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Joseph W. Byrns (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be read a 
    third time, was read the third time, and passed, and a motion to 
    reconsider was laid on the table.
        Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to vacate 
    the proceedings of the House by which H.R. 2713 was passed.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Missouri asks unanimous consent 
    to vacate the proceedings of the House whereby H.R. 2713 was passed 
    and to lay that bill on the table. Is there objection?
        There was no objection.

Sec. 14.5 Where an omnibus private bill is passed containing House 
    bills similar to Senate bills on the Speaker's table the Speaker 
    recognizes Members for unanimous-consent requests to take up such 
    Senate bills for consideration; upon passage of the Senate

[[Page 4514]]

    bill, the House vacates action on the similar House bill.

    On Aug. 21, 1935,(4) the Chair made the following 
statement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 79 Cong. Rec. 13993, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (5) In the omnibus bills which were 
    passed on yesterday there were included several bills which had 
    previously passed the Senate and were on the Speaker's table. The 
    Chair feels that those Members who are interested in those 
    particular bills should have an opportunity to ask unanimous 
    consent for the immediate consideration of the Senate bills, so 
    that they can be taken out of the omnibus bills when they are 
    reported to the Senate. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Joseph W. Byrns (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William A.] Pittenger [of Minnesota]: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    unanimous consent for the immediate consideration of the bill (S. 
    1448) for the relief of certain claimants who suffered loss by fire 
    in the State of Minnesota during October 1918.
        The Speaker: Is that one of the bills in the omnibus bill that 
    was passed yesterday?
        Mr. Pittenger: It is one of the bills in the omnibus bill 
    passed on yesterday.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. By this Mr. Pittenger meant that the Senate bill in question was 
        the same as the House bill (H.R. 3662) which was passed the 
        previous day as part of the omnibus bill (H.R. 8108, 79 Cong. 
        Rec. 13842-55, 74th Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 20, 1935), while its 
        counterpart, S. 1443, remained at the Speaker's table.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read the title of the bill.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from Minnesota?
        There was no objection.
        The bill was ordered to be read a third time, was read the 
    third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the 
    table.
        The Speaker: Without objection the procedure by which title IV 
    of the omnibus bill (H.R. 3662) was passed on yesterday will be 
    vacated, and the House bill laid on the table.
        There was no objection.

Private Senate Bills at the Speaker's Table

Sec. 14.6 The House by resolution provided for the consideration of 
    private Senate bills on the Private Calendar as well as private 
    Senate bills on the Speaker's table, where similar House bills have 
    been favorably reported and were on the Private Calendar.

    On Feb. 25, 1933,(7) the House considered House 
Resolution 398, called up by Mr. Henry T. Rainey, of Illinois:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 76 Cong. Rec. 5021, 72d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That on Wednesday, March 1, 1933, it shall be in 
    order to move that the House take a recess until 8 o'clock p.m., 
    and that at the evening session until 10:30 p.m. it shall be in 
    order to consider Senate bills on the Private Calendar and Sen

[[Page 4515]]

    ate bills on the Speaker's table where similar House bills have 
    been favorably reported and are now on the Private Calendar, the 
    call of said bills to begin where the last call of the Private 
    Calendar ended. In order to expedite the consideration of said 
    bills the Clerk shall prepare a special Private Calendar of Senate 
    bills eligible to be considered under this resolution, and the 
    bills on said special calendar unobjected to shall be considered in 
    their numerical order on said calendar in the House as in Committee 
    of the Whole: Provided, That after the completion of the call of 
    bills on said special Private Calendar of Senate bills it shall be 
    in order to call the bills on the Private Calendar where the last 
    call on the Private Calendar ended.

House Bills and Unrelated Amendments

Sec. 14.7 The House has suspended the rules and agreed to a private 
    House bill with a Senate amendment extending the life of the Civil 
    Rights Commission.

    On Oct. 7, 1963,(8) Mr. Emanuel Celler, of New York, 
moved that the House suspend the rules and adopt a resolution (H. Res. 
541) that the private bill (H.R. 3369) for the relief of Elizabeth G. 
Mason, with a Senate amendment thereto extending the life of the Civil 
Rights Commission for one year, be taken from the Speaker's table and 
agreed to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 109 Cong. Rec. 18851-64, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The motion and the resolution were agreed to.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Id. at pp. 18863, 18864.
